Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 1 of 144

EO12866_SNAP Status Change 2060-AS18 NPRM_20140408

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL-XXXX-X]

RIN 2060-AS18

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Significant New 

Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to change the status of a number of substitutes 

that were previously listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other substitutes are 

available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and/or the environment. 

Specifically, this action proposes to modify the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various 

end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This 

action also proposes use conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those 

uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to 

human health and/or the environment. This action also proposes to change the status from 

acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of production 

under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of 

the Clean Air Act.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 2 of 144

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER]. Any party requesting a public hearing must 

notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 

p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. If a hearing is held, it will take place on or about [INSERT DATE 

30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER] in Washington, DC and 

further information will be provided on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone website at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–

0198, by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

 E-mail: A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov.

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2014–0198.

 Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–

2014–0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. EPA’s

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 3 of 144

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW. Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 4 of 144

Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric 

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

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

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

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

available on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone website at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

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

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

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

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

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

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

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

III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed 

decision to modify prior SNAP determinations?

IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for substitutes with 

a high global warming potential?

A. Summary of petitions

B. How today's action relates to petitions

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?

A. Aerosols

1. Background

2. Aerosols today

3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?

a. What other substitutes are available?

i. Consumer aerosols

ii. Technical aerosols
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 5 of 144

iii. Medical aerosols

b. What other approaches is EPA considering?

c. When would the modified listings apply?

d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?

B. Motor vehicle air conditioning for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles

1. Background

2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134 and use of refrigerant 

blends for MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles?

3. Will this action affect EPA’s light-duty vehicle rule?

C. Retail food refrigeration and vending machines

1. Background

2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket systems)?

a. New condensing units and supermarket systems

b. Retrofit condensing units and supermarket systems

3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment?

a. New stand-alone equipment

b. Retrofit stand-alone equipment

4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?

a. New vending machines

b. Retrofit vending machines

5. When would the listings change?

6. Applicability to service of existing equipment

7. Energy efficiency consideration

8. What other options is EPA considering?

a. New and retrofit condensing units and supermarket systems

b. New stand-alone equipment and vending machines

c. Retrofit stand-alone equipment and vending machines

9. Status of R-404A and R-507A in other end-uses

D. Foam blowing agents

1. Background

2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?

a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?

b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute 

foam blowing agents?

i. Proposed unacceptable agents

ii. Rigid polyurethane appliance foam

iii. Flexible polyurethane

iv. Rigid polyurethane spray foam

v. Rigid polyurethane use in commercial refrigeration and 

sandwich panels

vi. Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam

vii. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock

viii. Polystyrene extruded sheet

ix. Polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 6 of 144

x. Integral skin polyurethane

xi. Polyolefin foam

xii. Phenolic insulation boardstock and bunstock

c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing 

foams?

d. When would the listings change?

e. Exceptions for military or space- and aeronautics-related 

applications

f. Summary

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?

A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for three HCFCs and 

in which end-uses?

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?

1. Alignment of SNAP listings for three HCFCs with regulations 

implementing CAA sections 605 and 610

2. Anticipated effects

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks

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

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

IX. References

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of certain substitutes1

previously found acceptable under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. 

 

1 The terms “substitutes” and “alternatives” are used interchangeably.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 7 of 144

EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and air conditioning and 

refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are available or potentially available that pose 

overall lower risk. Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection 

between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose

that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not 

proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA 

recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated 

(e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, 

consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these 

modifications based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and 

the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. 

EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:

1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

 HFC-125 as unacceptable;

 HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in 

specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and 

prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols); and 

 HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only 

in metered dose inhalers. 

2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles, 

we are proposing to list

 HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year (MY) 2021; and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 8 of 144

 The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-24), R-416A (also 

known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as 

HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), 

HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC 

Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017.

3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand-alone equipment, 

condensing units, direct supermarket systems, and indirect supermarket systems) and new 

and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.

4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including direct supermarket systems and 

indirect supermarket systems), we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A 

as unacceptable.

5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines, we are 

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable.

6) For all foam blowing end-uses except spray foam as specified below, we are proposing 

to list, as of January 1, 2017

 HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable;

 HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends 

Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses 

where they are currently listed as acceptable, except for spray foam applications; 

and
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 9 of 144

 The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses where 

it is currently listed as acceptable.

In general, EPA is proposing modifications to the listings based on the SNAP program’s 

comparative risk framework. The sections that follow provide the analyses supporting the 

proposed listing modifications and the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of 

these substitutes. In addition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on this rule including 

market characterizations, analyses of costs associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits 

associated with the transition to alternatives, and potential small business impacts.

2,3,4,5,,6,7,8

The 

emissions reductions from this proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are available in the docket 

for commenters to review. EPA is planning to prepare a consolidated analysis document.

EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b, 

HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to 

unacceptable in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion protection agents, 

sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These modifications reflect the existing regulations 

promulgated under CAA sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and 

 

2

ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. May, 2014.

3

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. May, 2014.

4

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

5

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

6

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. April, 2014.

7

EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014.

8

ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. June 2014.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 10 of 144

C. The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a final rule 

promulgating this proposal.

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN 

INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities

Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors

Industry 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing

Industry 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

Industry 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing

Industry 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

Industry 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods

Industry 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing

Industry 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing

Industry 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing

Industry 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) 

Manufacturing

Industry 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing

Industry 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing

Industry 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

Industry 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing

Retail 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer 

Electronics Merchant Wholesalers

Retail 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

Retail 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores

Retail 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores

Retail 445120 Convenience Stores

Retail 44521 Meat Markets

Retail 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets

Retail 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets

Retail 445291 Baked Goods Stores

Retail 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores

Retail 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores

Retail 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores

Retail 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores

Retail 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores

Retail 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 11 of 144

Retail 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores

Services 72111 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels

Services 72112 Casino Hotels

Retail 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)

Retail 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants

Retail 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets

Retail 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to 

use the substitute whose use is regulated by this action. If you have any questions about whether 

this action applies to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the above section, [FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT].

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

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)

Do not submit confidential information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 

disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 

then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed 

as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 

CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember to:

 Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information 

(subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 12 of 144

 Follow directions–The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.

 Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes.

 Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that 

you used.

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate 

in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

 Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

threats.

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline.

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

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

ACGIH—American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene Association

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification Number 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4—Methane

CO2—Carbon dioxide
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 13 of 144

CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent

DOE—United States Department of Energy

EIA—Environmental Investigation Agency-US

EO—Executive Order

EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency

EU—European Union

FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration

FR—Federal Register 

GHG—Greenhouse gas

Gt—Gigaton

GWP—Global warming potential 

HC—Hydrocarbon

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin

ICF—ICF International, Inc.

ICR—Information collection request

IGSD—Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MDI—metered dose inhaler

MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning

N2—Nitrogen

NAICS—North American Industrial Classification System
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 14 of 144

NIOSH—United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OEM—Original equipment manufacturer 

ODP—Ozone depletion potential 

ODS—Ozone-depleting substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management and Budget

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PEL—Permissible exposure limit

PFC—Perfluorocarbons

ppm—Parts per million 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act

REL—Recommended exposure limit 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SF6-- Sulfur hexafluoride

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy

SRES—Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

TLV—Threshold limit value

TWA—Time-weighted average 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

VOC—Volatile organic compounds

WEEL-Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 15 of 144

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

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) to develop a program for evaluating 

alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. This program is known as the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking

Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I 

(e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any

substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the 

environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall 

risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently or potentially available.

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes that it finds to be 

unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for 

specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and 

the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 

3. Petition Process

Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or 

delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 

90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the 

revised lists within an additional six months.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 16 of 144

4. 90-day Notification

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for 

a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals 

are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I 

substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer’s unpublished health 

and safety studies on such substitutes.

5. Outreach

Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal 

research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and 

developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

6. Clearinghouse

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative 

chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for 

products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances. 

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

On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which 

established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA’s first lists 

identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 

82, subpart G). These sectors are the following: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; 

solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, 

coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors 

that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting substances (ODS).

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 17 of 144

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to replace a class I or II 

ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the 

required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into 

interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this 

requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to 

introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,9it may also apply to importers, formulators, 

equipment manufacturers, or end-users10 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute 

into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and 

determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The 

CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90

days after a complete submission has been provided to the Agency.

The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: 

acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and 

unacceptable.11 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered 

“use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use 

conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and 

without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to 

use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found 

 

9 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product 

between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the 

District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or 

District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a 

product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the 

domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs 

clearance.

10 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major 

industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance. 

11 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a 

determination, under this provision.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 18 of 144

to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such 

substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.12

After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable 

only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human 

health and the environment are not significantly greater than other available substitutes. EPA 

describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these 

substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).

For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use within an end-use or 

sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use substitute to 

demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application. EPA 

describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a 

substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are 

not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of 

the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).

The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk 

to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially

available13 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute 

 

12 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting 

compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, 

or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use 

encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured 

within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the 

rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

13 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 19 of 144

if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance. 

The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to 

list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove 

a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. 

In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” to notify the public of substitutes 

that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially

implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that 

rulemaking procedures are necessary to list substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions 

because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional 

information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory

decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. 

However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., 

worker protection regulations promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA)). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include 

all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not 

legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all 

statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many 

instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been 

identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, 

 

available substitutes. The SNAP program’s definition of “potentially available “ is “any alternative for which 

adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a 

determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all 

testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR §82.172)
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 20 of 144

if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating 

practices.

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

The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the preamble to the initial 

SNAP rule and based on section 612, are discussed below. 

 Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework

The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds compared to available or 

potentially available substitutes to the ozone depleting compounds which they are intended to 

replace. The risk factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well as

flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and contributions to climate change and 

other environmental factors. 

 Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found acceptable

For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk than other substitutes, but they do 

not have to be risk free. Where risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other 

substitutes, EPA may find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or narrowed use 

limits that would manage the risk. 

 Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse

EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only marginally greater risk. Drawing fine 

distinctions would be extremely difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the 

market’s choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few substitutes for each enduse. Thus, the Agency will not list a potential substitute as unacceptable unless EPA determines 

that the substitute is significantly more harmful to human health or the environment than other 

available or potentially available alternatives. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 21 of 144

 Evaluate risks by use

Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the intersection between the characteristics of the substitute

itself and its specific end-use application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by

use. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the 

particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk characterizations must be designed to 

represent differences in the environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses. 

This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of 

risk to either the environment or to human health. 

 Provide the regulated community with information as soon as possible

The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community with information on the 

acceptability of various substitutes as soon as possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or 

determinations of acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable, acceptable to 

use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the Federal Register. In addition, 

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

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

 Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies

The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In many cases, the Agency

may base its analysis on data received on individual products, but the addition of a substitute to 

the acceptable list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that company’s 

products.

 Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted

In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under other 

sections of the CAA or other statutes that address any potential environmental impacts that may
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 22 of 144

result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For example, use of some 

substitutes may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air 

pollution. The SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into account when 

reviewing substitutes. 

E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP 

program?

EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is acceptable or 

unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at §82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects 

and related health and environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, and 

flammability. To enable EPA to assess these criteria, we require submitters to include various 

information including ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential (GWP), 

toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure. 

When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria in the following 

groupings: 

 Atmospheric effects- The SNAP program evaluates the potential contributions to both 

ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP program considers the ozone depletion 

potential and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects. 

 Exposure assessments- The SNAP program uses exposure assessments to estimate 

concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, 

and environmental receptors may be exposed over a determined period of time. These 

assessments are based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. 

Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including: 

1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 23 of 144

2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;

3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.

 Toxicity data- The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the possible health and 

environmental effects of exposure to substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such 

as: 

1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure; 

2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic effects on the 

general population; 

3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the general population. 

When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a PEL for a compound, 

EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) 

set by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, or Threshold Limit Values set by the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for occupational 

exposure or exposure to the general population are not already established, then EPA 

derives these values following the Agency’s peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure 

information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis for concern. 

Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based limits for 

interim use in these risk characterizations.

 Flammability-The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety concern for workers 

and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using data on: 

1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/combustibility

classifications); 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 24 of 144

2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components; 

3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by independent 

laboratories; and 

4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques. 

 Other environmental impacts- The SNAP program also examines other potential 

environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts. A compound 

that is likely to be discharged to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. 

Some substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a 

potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA sections 

112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act subtitle C regulations. 

Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great 

deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

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

section 612(d), the Agency must review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 25 of 144

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, we interpret the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or 

unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or remove a substance from the 

SNAP lists. In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we 

consider whether there are other available substitutes that pose a lower risk to human health and 

the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing of a substitute we consider new data 

not considered at the time of our original listing decision, including information on new

substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed.

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

As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the original SNAP rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA 

requires EPA to list as unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are other 

substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human health and the 

environment. In addition to comparing the human health and environmental effects of other 

available or potentially available substitutes for the same end-uses, we also compare substitutes 

to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 26 of 144

that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and under the CAA. 

The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the 

environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers in its comparative risk 

framework. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the 

particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions based on the particular 

end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found certain substitutes

acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions.

In May 2013 EPA stated:

EPA recognizes that during the nearly two- decade long history of the SNAP program, 

new alternatives and new information about alternatives have emerged. To the extent 

possible, EPA considers new information and improved understanding of the risk factors 

for the environment and human health in the context of the available or potentially 

available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035)

It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated. In that 

period, the menu of available alternatives has expanded greatly and now includes many

substitutes with diverse characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When 

the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for consideration was, for many 

end-uses, somewhat limited. While the SNAP program’s initial comparative assessments of 

overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few substitutes

to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that 

SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased 

out and were only an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 

Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP 

program did not convey permanence. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 27 of 144

Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 18 rules and 28 

notices expanding the menu of options for all SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today

are to a broader range of options – both chemical and non-chemical – than at the inception of the 

SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of 

the program. This varies by sector and by end-use.

In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over the past 20 years 

have improved our understanding of global environmental issues. With regards to that 

information, many of the substitute-specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone 

comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of climate change. GWPs and 

climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation framework, but along with all of our 

review criteria the amount and quality of information has expanded. 

To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing management of the SNAP program considers new 

information and improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. EPA 

previously has taken several actions revising listing determinations from acceptable or 

acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable based on information made available to EPA 

after a listing was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant known by 

the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. EPA

previously listed this blend as an acceptable substitute in various end-uses within the 

refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275). Based on new information 

about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT–31 from 

the list of acceptable substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air 

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

Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 2007 when EPA 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 28 of 144

listed HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as unacceptable for use in the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 

72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are ozone depleting and subject to a global production 

phaseout, were initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP than the 

substances they were replacing and there were no other available substitutes that posed lower 

risk at the time of EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and 

end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of the expanded availability of 

alternative substitutes with lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific 

foam end-uses, and taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed the

listing for these HCFCs in these end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, EPA 

noted that continued use of these HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone 

layer and delay the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use for a limited time to ensure that they

could adjust their manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes. 

The Role of Economic Concerns for the “Availability” Determination under Clean Air Act Section 612 (c )

In the 2004 case, Honeywell International v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D. C. Cir 2004), the

court invited EPA to clarify its views on whether economic considerations play a role under Clean Air Section 612 

(c). In the 2002 final rule, EPA noted that it would allow continued use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b , stating that 

"there would be significant impact on small businesses" if EPA had delisted these chemicals because switching to 

the alternatives "would be difficult and prohibitively costly.” 67 Fed. Reg. 47703, 47706-09. (July 

22,2002). The court overturned the EPA rule change because the agency failed to explain its position on 

the relevance of cost considerations in section 612 determinations. 

EPA now interprets the section 612 (c ) as permitting the agency to consider both technical 

concerns and practical and economic concerns, such as those cited in the Honeywell decision. 

As in the Honeywell case, EPA may allow the continuance of existing acceptable uses even 

where a new substitute would be technically available, but prohibitively expensive for small 

businesses for certain specific end uses. The transition cost to adopt a substitute chemical could 

be so expensive that a small manufacturer would not be able to recover its research and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 29 of 144

development costs to reformulate a small production line, although it may be practicable for 

larger production lines. EPA requests comment on the EPA interpretation of this provision. In 

addition, the agency requests information about the technical and cost constraints on individual 

businesses for specific end uses, with the supporting factual information.

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

For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on 

SNAP, refer to EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the 

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

refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations 

are found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.

III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this

proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations?

GWP, along with other criteria, is a factor in the overall evaluation of alternatives under 

the SNAP program. During the past two decades, the general science on climate change and the 

potential contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change have 

become better understood. 

On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two distinct findings 

regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act14:

 Endangerment Finding: the current and projected concentrations of the six key wellmixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

 

14 The relevant scientific and technical information summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause 

or Contribute Finding can be found at: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 30 of 144

(N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — threaten the 

public health and welfare of current and future generations.

 Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse 

gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the

greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.15 Though they represent a small 

fraction of the current total volume of GHG emissions, their warming impact is very strong 

because they can remain trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ years impacting climate 

change 20,000 times more powerfully than CO2, and their emissions are projected to accelerate

over the next several decades if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are 

increasing more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15% 

annually.

16 At that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.17 HFCs are 

rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most 

abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations 

of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, 

respectively.18, 19

Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 

205020, which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq 

 

15 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related 

to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).

16 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment

Programme.

17 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.

18 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 

2012.

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

20 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 31 of 144

between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is 

projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m‐2. This increase may be as much as onefifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO2 since 

2000, according to the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To 

appreciate the significance of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all 

GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the 

IPCC’s highest CO2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based on 

the IPCC’s lowest CO2 emissions pathway.

21,22 Additional information concerning the peerreviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking.

IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for substitutes 

with a high global warming potential?

A. Summary of petitions

EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain acceptability listings of 

HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. The first petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and 

Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation Agency-US (EIA). The 

petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS 

 

projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 

10949–10954. 

21 HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), 2011, 36pp

22

 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. 

Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., 

D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 32 of 144

and move it to the list of unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequently 

clarified that they were requesting this change for the use of HFC-134a in new passenger cars 

and light-duty trucks, non-medical aerosols, and for certain refrigeration and foam blowing enduses. In support of their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in motor 

vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed that these other substitutes

present much lower risks to human health and environment than HFC-134a. 

On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in new passenger 

cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA 

noted in its response that, at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition, noting in particular that EPA 

would evaluate and take comment on many factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe 

for introduction of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and 

potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate substitutes. This 

proposed rule responds to the aspect of that petition that we found complete. 

On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated that, in light of the 

comparative nature of the SNAP program’s evaluation of substitutes and given that other 

acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC-134a 

and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses where EPA found CFCs and 

HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of the Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for 

moving HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes

be based on the “most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of the” acceptable substitutes

for each use. The petitioner noted that initial approvals of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses 

occurred in the 1990s and were based on the assessment made then that 1) HFC-134a does not 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 33 of 144

contribute to ozone depletion; 2) HFC-134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime were close to those 

of other substitutes that had been determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and 3) HFC-134a 

is not flammable, and its toxicity is low.23 The petitioner stated that the analysis used in the 

listing decisions may have been appropriate in the 1990s but was no longer reflected accurately 

given the range of other available or potentially available substitutes at present. 

In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the petitioner requested that the 

section 610 Nonessential Products Ban be extended to HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends for 

aerosols and pressurized dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty

products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string, artificial snow, specialty paints 

and excrement “poop” freeze); noise horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event 

noise horns, personal safety noise horns, wall-mounted industrial noise horns used as alarms in 

factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns used as alarms in homes and cars); foam 

and refrigerants in new domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand-alone coolers 

and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic, photographic, and other 

equipment. 

On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition was incomplete. EPA 

and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket.

Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this proposal may be 

considered responsive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is proposing to change the 

listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most 

uses, and proposing to place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses. 

A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They requested 

 

23 See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg. at 31,097.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 34 of 144

that EPA: 

1) Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for CFC-12 in household 

refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers; 

2) Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all except certified technicians with 

access to service tools required under existing EPA regulations; 

3) Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of transition from obsolete 

high-GWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives and substitutes;

4) Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other refrigerants with 100-year GWPs greater 

than 150 from the acceptable substitutes list for household refrigerators and freezers and 

stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers. 

On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have 

exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found the 

petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain 

aspects of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-134a from 

acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers, as well as 

changing the listing of a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit 

stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers.

B. How today's action relates to petitions

This action primarily recognizes a call in the President’s Climate Action Plan announced 

June 2013:

To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as domestic actions...Moving forward, the 

Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions 

technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting 

certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 35 of 144

The Climate Action Plan also states “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and 

will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.” This proposed rule 

is part of our domestic commitment to take action now and, by doing so, also supporting efforts 

to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past five years, the United States, Canada, and 

Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production 

and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of 

over 90 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United States, the 

European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions that will promote the uptake of 

low-GWP alternatives and reduce use and emissions of high-GWP HFCs.

This proposal responds to the President’s Climate Action Plan and also addresses certain 

aspects of the three petitions referred to above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the 

three petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners’ request that EPA change the listing 

of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new MVACs. (See section V.B. in today’s 

notice.) While EPA found all remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to 

the other end-uses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain 

other requests made by the petitioners regarding listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. 

Specifically, based on our review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration 

sectors, we are proposing to revise the listings for a number of substitutes from acceptable to 

acceptable subject to use conditions, or unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of 

today’s notice.) These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or 

potentially available substitutes in those end–uses and pose significantly greater risk overall to 

human health and the environment. EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or 

HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFC be 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 36 of 144

unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific 

sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., 

HFCs, HFOs and non-fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, 

consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these 

modifications, and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being considered, 

the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available 

substitutes in specific sectors and end-uses.

EPA recently issued a proposed rule [INSERT DATE OF LOW GWP RULE] that would 

list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of refrigeration and air-conditioning 

alternatives that have been submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. That rule would 

enhance the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related end-uses by 

proposing to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to use conditions.

As noted previously, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400 alternatives. This 

level of development work serves as a clear demonstration of the efforts of industry to 

commercialize alternatives that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide 

range of consumers.

Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated community on the SNAP 

related aspects of the President’s Climate Action Plan, we have sought to convey our continued 

understanding of the role that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of 

alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its chemical 

and end-use specific consideration, its multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend 

to militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such as bright line cut offs. 

That being said we do believe that the proposals we are making today, and future proposals we 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 37 of 144

may make, may provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria in 

individual end-uses. In addition, we remain committed to continuing our outreach efforts and to 

sharing our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions we might consider. 

Finally, and as it relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under the SNAP 

program, the Agency continues to welcome comments and ideas on measures we might consider 

within the SNAP context to provide greater certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP 

regulated industrial sectors.

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?

EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain HFCs

and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where 

other alternatives are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per the 

guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific HFC or 

HFC blend and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be

unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific 

sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g.,

HFCs, HFOs) and non-fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially acceptable. 

Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and CAA Section 612, EPA is proposing these 

modifications based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and 

the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. 

EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:

1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 

 HFC-125 as unacceptable;
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 38 of 144

 HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in 

specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and 

prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols); and 

 HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only 

in metered dose inhalers. 

2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles, 

we are proposing to list

 HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year MY 2021; and 

 The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-24), R-416A (also 

known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as 

HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), 

HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC 

Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017.

3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand-alone equipment, 

condensing units, direct supermarket systems, and indirect supermarket systems) and new 

and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.

4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including direct supermarket systems and 

indirect supermarket systems), we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A 

as unacceptable.

5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines, we are 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 39 of 144

proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable.

6) For all foam blowing end-uses, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017

 HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable;

 HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends 

Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses 

where they are currently listed as acceptable, except for spray foam applications; 

and

 The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam blowing end-uses where 

it is currently listed as acceptable.

In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP listings are based on 

information concerning the availability of alternatives with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment for the end-uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed 

dates. EPA is particularly interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in 

sufficient quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that several of the enduses could be broken down further. EPA could consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits 

for a specific application of an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes would be 

available for all but that specific application as of a particular date. For other applications in that 

end-use, the rule would list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific 

application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed use limit with an 

expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While 

the temporary narrowed use limit was in place, only persons using a substitute in the end-use for 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 40 of 144

that specific application would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of the CAA 

and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to 

comply with the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other alternatives that are 

technically feasible for their specific end-use. To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed 

use limit for a specific application of an end-use in the final rule, commenters should explain 

why other alternatives would not be available for the specific application of that end-use and for 

what period of time.

In determining whether to modify the listing decisions for substitutes based on whether 

other alternatives are available that pose lower risk to human health and the environment, we 

considered, among other things: scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel that supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to 

the SNAP program, the regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, 

presentations and reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from 

trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be 

found in the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section IX of today’s notice.

A. Aerosols

1. Background

The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses: propellants and solvents. 

Aerosols typically use a liquefied or compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, 

or powder form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants off of surfaces, 

the propellant is also itself the active ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which 

may be used in manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 41 of 144

Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been available to formulators. 

HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, compressed air) have 

long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. 

CFCs were excellent propellants because of their ability to produce a fine spray, their nonflammability, their ability to be stored under low pressure, and their low reactivity with other 

ingredients. In 1978, in response to evidence regarding depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the 

United States banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or solvent uses. 

For example, CFC-113 and methyl chloroform continued to be used as solvents in aerosols and 

HCFCs continued to be used.

Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were reformulated or 

replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or 

solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs, 

compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are controlled substances under 

the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of 

production and import under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a). 

In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610’s Congressionally

mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of certain nonessential products containing ozone-depleting substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). All 

aerosol products and pressurized dispensers containing, or manufactured with, CFCs and HCFCs 

-- except those specifically exempted by the regulations -- are banned from sale and distribution 

in interstate commerce in the United States. As a result of the Nonessential Products Ban, most 

aerosol products have been using low-GWP alternatives with no ozone depletion potential since 

the early 1990s. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 42 of 144

2. Aerosols today

Following the 1994 ban on the sale and distribution of aerosols using HCFCs, HCFC 

propellants were replaced with a range of alternatives including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC152a), HCs, compressed gases, and not-in-kind alternatives. HCFC solvents were replaced by

HFC-43-10mee, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HCs, oxygenated organic compounds, 

hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene (typically blended with an HFC or HFE to 

reduce flammability of the formulation). Other acceptable low-GWP fluorinated compounds 

include HFOs. HFO-1234ze(E) is in use and under development for use in the aerosol industry as 

a propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued pursuant to CAA 

section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for manufacturing aerosol products. 

40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of 

other HCFCs in aerosol products (e.g., HCFC-225ca/cb), as well as other provisions related to 

the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78072).

The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol products in the following three 

categories: 1) consumer aerosols, 2) technical aerosols, and 3) medical aerosols. Consumer 

aerosols includes products for personal and household use. Examples include personal care 

products, such as: cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and deodorants; automotive products such 

as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake cleaners; noise horns and safety horns; animal 

repellants; spray adhesives with various applications; household cleaning products; hand-held 

spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard dusters; consumer freeze sprays (e.g. chewing gum or 

excrement removal); air fresheners; food dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., 

artificial snow, plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers). 

Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in commercial and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 43 of 144

industrial applications, not for normal day-to-day consumer use or medical use. Technical 

aerosols includes industrial cleaners (e.g., electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux 

removers, degreasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet sprays, aircraft insecticides); a 

subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens 

for observation under electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays. Technical 

aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as industrial spray paints and document 

preservation sprays. 

Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and include, but are not 

limited to, products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical 

aerosols include metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, calamine spray, anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound care sprays, freeze or 

coolant spray for pain relief, spray-on “liquid” bandages, and products for removing bandage 

adhesives.

Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the categories described 

above. For example, insect sprays include products with both commercial and consumer 

applications. The commercial application would include insect sprays used by utility power line 

workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) and the consumer use would 

include residential household insect repellant commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer 

aerosol). Another example is freeze sprays which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food 

freeze sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical aerosols (e.g., wart removers, pain relievers). 

Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is concentrated within 

household consumer products. This category has the highest production volume, reporting a 

2.4% increase from 2010 to 2011 (CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes many personal 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 44 of 144

care products (325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has identified 

as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a). Some of the dominant consumer aerosols 

includes air fresheners, deodorants, household cleaners, and hairspray.

3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?

Today’s action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is proposing to modify

the listings for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as of January 1, 2016 as follows: 

 EPA is proposing to change the listing for the aerosol propellant HFC-125 from 

acceptable to unacceptable. 

 We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions allowing its use only in the following: cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for 

electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use 

near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic 

use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP 

propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic 

fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation 

sprays; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for systemic 

delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays 

for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. 

 EPA is also proposing to list HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 45 of 144

a. What other alternatives are available?

EPA is proposing to change the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFC227ea as of January 1, 2016 because safer alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds and 

technological options) are available or potentially available that reduces the overall risk to 

human health and the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants include 

HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, CO2 and other compressed gases, and 

dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, technological options include not-in-kind alternatives such as 

finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, and wipes. These alternatives 

have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 compared with HFC-134a’s GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea’s 

GWP of 3,220 and HFC-125’s GWP of 3,500.24 All of these alternatives have an ODP of zero, 

are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining below their respective exposure limits 

when used as aerosol propellants. In addition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other 

environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers that differ for these 

alternatives include impacts on local air quality and flammability. For example, butane, propane, 

isobutane, and DME are VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and 

DME are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards; thus, these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation that 

may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states and counties that have 

nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone. HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-152a, 

HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed gases CO2 and N2 are not defined as VOCs under these 

 

24 GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. 

Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the calculations and analysis 

presented in AR4 and referenced materials.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 46 of 144

regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact on ground-level ozone levels. 

i. Consumer Aerosols

For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs that meet other 

environmental regulatory requirements: HFC-152a, which has a GWP of 124; HFO-1234ze(E) 

with a GWP of 6; and CO2 with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those 

of the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions (range of GWPs from 1430 

to 3500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125). These three substitutes also provide a range 

of performance based on vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to 

propel the necessary ingredients out of the aerosol container. The vapor pressures of HFO1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and CO2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively. 

ii. Technical aerosols

Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous requirements for selection 

because of performance demands that do not exist for most consumer aerosols. For example, 

nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can 

create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable alternatives, the nonflammable 

options at room temperature include HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E) and 

compressed gases including CO2 and N2. At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or 85°F), HFO1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher flammability limits and could catch fire under specific 

conditions of concentration and in the presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol 

product formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of HFO-1234ze(E) 

and the significantly higher vapor pressure of CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide 

adequate performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the can for technical 

aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and CO2 at 20 °C 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 47 of 144

are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.

The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used requires non-flammability

and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based on the information available today, EPA believes it 

is necessary to continue to allow for HFC-134a to be used for certain technical spray applications 

because of these technical limitations. We are therefore proposing to list HFC-134a as acceptable 

subject to use conditions which would limit use to those specific applications. 

HFC-134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that can consistently meet the technical 

aerosol performance requirements, other environmental regulatory requirements, and is 

nonflammable. EPA considered whether HFC-227ea or HFC-125 should be continue to be listed 

as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have significantly higher GWPs 

than HFC-134a (HFC-227ea’s GWP is 3220 and HFC-125’s GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is 

not aware of the use of HFC-227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any

significant use of HFC-125 in technical aerosols. Neither HFC-227ea nor HFC-125 provides 

greater reduction in health or environmental risk than HFC-134a. 

iii. Medical Aerosols

EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable subject to use 

conditions which specify that these two HFCs are acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to 

ensure that there is no confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these medical 

aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions 

for wound care sprays, for topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation and for products for 

removing bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special needs for safety

and low toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for use in medical devices, 

it must first be reviewed and approved by the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use in 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 48 of 144

metered dose inhalers using HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as propellants, as well as some not-inkind dry powder medications. 

FDA has not approved medications for MDIs or other medical aerosols using HFC-125. 

EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currently using hydrocarbons or DME as the 

propellant, as well as not-in-kind alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, 

calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014a). EPA has 

insufficient information that alternatives other than HFC-134a are available as propellants in 

wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing 

bandage adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are available alternatives 

with less overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC-134a. For these reasons, 

we are proposing to list HFC-227ea as acceptable subject to a use condition limiting its use to 

MDIs and to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions limiting its use to MDIs and 

the other medical uses listed above.

HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all other alternatives that 

are available for use as aerosol propellants (HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC-134 has a 

GWP of 1430; HFO-1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO2 and HFO1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. When EPA listed HFC-227ea 

as acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted that it was doing so despite the 

relatively high GWP of this compound, because it fit a specialized application, metered dose 

inhalers, where other substitutes were not available that would provide acceptable performance.

EPA’s proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea only to 

manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products is modeled upon the Nonessential 

Product Ban exemptions for ODS in subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 49 of 144

and the proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed the sale and 

distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol products in interstate commerce, whereas 

this proposal addresses the propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products.

Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC-125 as unacceptable, HFC-227ea as acceptable 

subject to use conditions allowing its use only for MDIs and HFC-134a as acceptable subject to 

use conditions allowing its use only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. 

We request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these three HFCs. We also 

request comment on whether any of the proposed technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a should not 

be allowed or whether there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed uses 

under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not intending to alter the listing as 

acceptable for HFC-227ea and HFC-134a for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on 

the additional medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a.

b. What other approaches is EPA considering?

EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for aerosols and seeks 

comments on both. The first, as discussed above, is to find HFC-125 unacceptable and find HFC227ea and HFC-134a acceptable subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list 

of allowed uses or product types that may continue to use these HFCs (e.g., metered dose 

inhalers for both HFCs, insect sprays used near high tension power lines for HFC-134a). A 

second approach we are considering is to find HFC-125 unacceptable and to find HFC-134a 

acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical aerosols and HFC-227ea 

subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered “use 

restrictions” and are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC-227ea in metered 

dose inhalers or using HFC-134a in technical or medical aerosols would be considered to not be 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 50 of 144

in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The 

terms “technical aerosol” and “medical aerosol” would apply to the types of aerosols described 

above in section 2. “Aerosols today.” Under the narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other 

user intending to use the substitute could only use HFC-134a in manufacturing a technical or 

medical aerosol, or HFC-227ea in manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler, after ascertaining that 

other alternatives are not technically feasible. The user also would be required to document their 

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

Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses are that the list is 

clear about which products are allowed to use HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, both for users and for 

EPA. In addition, because EPA is specifying the uses in advance, end-users would not be 

required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep paperwork to document their 

evaluation, thereby reducing regulatory burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use 

limits is that it may encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate 

alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC-134a is not required. Further, 

establishing narrowed use limits may allow greater flexibility if there are additional types of 

technical or medical aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC-134a 

that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment on these two approaches to 

modifying the listings of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as aerosol propellants.

c. When would the modified listings apply?

EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings for HFC-125, HFC134a and HFC-227ea would be modified. Thus products manufactured on or after January 1, 

2016 in contravention of the unacceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions listing for these 

substitutes could not be used. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 51 of 144

We are proposing this date because we believe it is expeditious but will allow sufficient 

time after this proposed rule for end users to make the transition to alternatives. Based on the 

information available to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives. 

EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aerosols can make the necessary changes within 

this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014). In most cases, EPA believes it will take 

approximately six months for the necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the 

affected aerosol manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to change and test formulations 

and, to the extent necessary, to change the equipment in their factories.

To prevent stranded inventory, we are proposing that products manufactured prior to 

January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be still be sold, imported, exported, and used by

the end user after January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that end users would need to 

dispose of a usable product, including the potential for improper releases of the content into the 

environment. 

d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?

EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the following aerosol 

propellants: HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable; HFC-134a from acceptable to 

acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for electrical 

equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, 

in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which 

EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release agents; 

lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for 

removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 52 of 144

electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of 

asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where 

aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound care 

sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives 

from skin; and HFC-227ea from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its 

use only in metered dose inhalers. 

EPA also received suggestions from the aerosol industry to consider an exception to 

allow the use of HFC-134a in additional categories of aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to 

include these categories, either because we are aware of existing products in these categories 

using low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information indicating that the use 

of HFC-134a is necessary for these categories of products because other substitutes that pose 

lower risk are not currently or potentially available. These categories include: component freeze 

sprays, tissue freezes, refrigeration system flushes, portable safety horns for use in marine and 

industrial applications, tire inflators, and personal defense sprays. We are aware of nonflammable alternatives are available in the market today for personal defense sprays and tissue 

freezes. AdditionWe request information on why available substitutes other than HFC-134a are 

not and cannot be used in these categories of products, including information on why

flammability may be a concern or not in the product category; whether other alternative 

propellants with lower GWP in place of HFC-134a have been tested in these products; and what 

results of those tests have shown about the technical feasibility and/or safety of the other 

alternative propellants.

Finally, we request comments on modifying the listings as of January 1, 2016. We 

request commenters include specific information on whether it would be technically feasible for 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 53 of 144

end-users to transition by January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for 

manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps are expected to take.

B. Motor vehicle air conditioning for newly manufactured light-duty motor 

vehicles

1. Background

MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and rail vehicles. CFC-12 

refrigerant was historically used in MVAC systems. HFC-134a replaced CFC-12 in new 

equipment in the early 1990s. Today, HFC-134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty 

vehicles worldwide. When EPA found HFC-134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty vehicles in 

1994 (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the Agency stated:

HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a’s GWP and atmospheric 

lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which have been determined to be 

acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC-134a’s contribution to global warming could 

be significant in leaky end-uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of 

HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because industry continues to develop 

technology to limit emissions. In addition, the number of substitutes available for use in 

MVACs is currently limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low.

This analysis was consistent with the information available in 1994. Since that time, four additional 

substitutes have been added to the list of substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for 

light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other substitutes are used in systems 

designed consistent with the prescribed use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human 

health and the environment than HFC-134a. EPA is therefore proposing to remove HFC-134a from 

the list of acceptable substitutes for new light-duty vehicles’ MVAC systems and add it to the list of 

unacceptable substitutes. 

Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as acceptable subject to 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 54 of 144

use conditions.

25 Three of these alternatives - HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (R744) - are non-ozone depleting like HFC-134a and have low GWPs compared to HFC-134a. 

HFC-152a has a GWP of 124, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R-744 (by definition) has a 

GWP of 1 while HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. R-744 is nonflammable, HFO-1234yf and 

HFC-152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability concerns.

All three substitutes are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect against 

adverse health effects will not be exceeded and all three are VOC exempt. 

At the time EPA listed HFC-134a as acceptable, the agency was not aware of any vehicle 

manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer considering HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant.

Today, HFO-1234yf is in use in MVAC systems in approximately nine26 models in the United 

States by several manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. EPA expects additional models will be 

introduced using HFO-1234yf systems over the next several years. 

To date, at least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has announced their 

intention to commercialize vehicles using R-744 in MVAC systems later this decade.

27 In the 

mid-1990s, EPA became aware that R-744 systems might be a feasible alternative in this 

application, but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet available

because a design had not yet been developed that would allow safe use in MVAC systems in 

light duty vehicles. Nearly 20 years later, EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R744 in MVAC systems. However, significant research and development is occurring in order to 

ensure R-744 can be used safely in MVAC systems. 

In addition to HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744, EPA is aware of ongoing research 

 

25 Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

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

27 Daimler, 2014
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 55 of 144

and development which could ultimately result in future listings of additional alternatives for 

MVAC systems. One chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP approval for 

another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150.28

There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to

use conditions. None of these are currently used by the original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs). Several of these previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantly higher 

than the GWPS for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744 and higher overall risk than these other 

three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable the following substitutes in addition to 

HFC-134a: SP34E (GWP of 1300), R-426A (also known as RS-24) (GWP of 1508), R-416A 

(also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC blends, R406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC 

Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and 

HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and 

ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as “the 

refrigerant blends” in the following discussion. 

2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of 

refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty 

motor vehicles?

EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC systems in newly

manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because 

that is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC 

systems using other available refrigerants. As explained above, three alternatives on the SNAP 

 

28 Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting December 6, 2013
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 56 of 144

list of acceptable substitutes subject to use conditions —HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf—

have significantly lower GWPs than HFC-134a. All three of these lower-GWP alternatives are 

non-ozone depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect 

against adverse health effects will not be exceeded. All three are VOC exempt. HFO-1234yf and 

HFC-152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability concerns.

R-744 is not flammable. Because HFC-134a has a significantly higher GWP than HFC-152a, R744, and HFO-1234yf and because the risks posed by these three refrigerants are addressed 

through use conditions, we are proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable. However, because 

the three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC-134a only if used consistent with the 

established use conditions, in deciding when the unacceptability determination should apply, we 

considered the date by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle 

models (including design of the MVAC systems) consistent with the use conditions.

EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC 

Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in 

MVAC systems in newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. Since these refrigerant blends 

are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty vehicles, we believe it is appropriate 

for the unacceptability determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed. 

Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have significantly higher GWPs 

than other alternatives such as HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and CO2.

EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be able to transition 

their fleets to lower GWP refrigerants in its rules to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 57 of 144

standards for model year (MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 62807-810

(October 15, 2012); see also 75 FR 25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue 

for MY 2012-2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration jointly issued these rules on August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017-

2025 light-duty vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion 

metric tons of GHG emissions, with societal net benefits up to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The 

standards build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, which are 

projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil and 962 million metric tons of GHG 

emissions over the lifetime of the affected vehicles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 

billion. 75 FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire light-duty vehicle fleet will meet a target of 

163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the 

automotive industry meets the target exclusively through fuel efficiency improvements). 

When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning systems, they

contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP refrigerants can significantly reduce the 

climate impact of these emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower-GWP chemicals 

suitable for this purpose and systems that can use them, as well as increasing requirement for 

lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,29 EPA based the light-duty GHG standards for MYs 2017-

2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the 

level of the standards, EPA projected that the industry will make the full transition to lowerGWP refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 2017 and MY 2021, and the 

 

29 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive).

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 58 of 144

level of the standard in each of these model years reflects a projected 20 percent increase in 

substitution in each model year and complete transition by MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2-3. In

support of the assumption of this multi-year transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule for MYs 2017-

2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant substitute availability and technical 

feasibility of transitioning the fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807-810. 

At the time the Light Duty GHG rule was promulgated, EPA (and other entities) voiced 

concerns with the potential supply of HFO-1234yf, but today production plans for the refrigerant 

appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic 

auto industry demand, consistent with the projections in the Light Duty GHG rulemaking.

Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO-1234yf, and recently another global 

chemical producer announced plans to produce HFO-1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some 

automotive manufacturers are developing systems that can safely use other substitutes, including 

R-744, and continued progress is likely given the EU’s implementation of the MAC Directive. If 

some global light-duty motor vehicle manufacturers use R-744, additional volumes of HFO1234yf that would have been used by those manufacturers will then become available. Therefore, 

there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand domestically and abroad, including in 

the European Union, during this time frame.

In addition to considering when the supply of alternative refrigerants would be sufficient

to transition the entire light duty vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle

manufacturers could design systems for safe use of these alternatives consistent with the 

regulatory use conditions.

30 EPA considered the practices used by the auto manufacturing 

 

30 As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, R-744 and HFC-152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and 

many of the use conditions address the design of systems to account for the flammability or exposure.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 59 of 144

industry in introducing new technologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, 

manufacturers establish a “redesign” (or product development) cycle over which they plan any 

significant technological changes to that vehicle. Between the major redesign model years, they

may make only minor “refresh” changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by manufacturer 

and average about 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a 

more detailed discussion of this practice.) At any point in time, a manufacturer may have some 

vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that are earlier in their product 

cycle.

In the final rule establishing light-duty vehicle GHG standards for MYs 2017-2025, EPA 

assumed that the transition to alternative refrigerants would generally occur during manufacturer 

model redesigns and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years to estimate 

how the expected industry-wide transition to new refrigerants might occur. For analytical 

purposes, and based on information available at the time, we projected that the transition would 

occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been some early adopters. The 

transition began in a small number of MY 2013 vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has 

been relatively limited to date.

31

 While some may maintain that early adoption equates to a faster 

overall transition, EPA notes that early adoption remains limited and therefore we continue to 

view our projection of full transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable.

Although there may be some limited ability to switch a vehicle model to an MVAC 

system using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign periods, most model types will require 

significant hardware changes that may only be possible during a redesign. HFO-1234yf, for 

 

31 Nelson, Gabe “Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate” 

Automobile News, December 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 60 of 144

example, has measurably lower efficiency than that of HFC-134a, usually requiring hardware 

changes and/or changes to overall air conditioning system design and layout.

32, 33 This contrasts 

with the case of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to HFC-134a, where the systems had 

similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were able to switch many vehicles midcycle. Vehicles that require relatively more cooling capacity will be more dependent on a 

redesign cycle for a transition to HFO-1234yf since the specifications for hardware would need 

to be revisited. Most manufacturers have “locked-in” their planned product designs out to MY 

2016, MY 2017, or even MY 2018. If any of these manufacturers have not planned to implement 

alternative refrigerant systems in these late model year vehicles, the next design cycle 

opportunity to make a change would be unlikely to occur until MY 2021 (or even MY 2022). In 

addition, at least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R-744 (CO2) systems. R-744 

systems require significantly more complex redesign and hardware and would need to occur 

during product redesign, not product refresh given its pressure is significantly different than 

HFC-134a. These systems are currently in prototype phase, and there are significant technical 

hurdles yet to overcome. Given EPA’s understanding, above, of the supply of the alternative 

refrigerants and the redesign cycle for MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a as 

unacceptable for new MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 because this is the time by

which all light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems with 

alternative refrigerants.

 

32 Weissler, Paul, “A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,” 

Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013.

33 One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware changes were necessary or likely when shifting from 

a HFC-134a to a HFO-1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/or compressor changes, possible 

A/C piping modification due to the change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant, additional 

refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum: “Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning 

Alternative Refrigerant Transition”, Tad Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made similar statements to EPA.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 61 of 144

As a cross-check, EPA explored whether vehicles and MVAC systems designed 

consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative refrigerants might be available earlier 

than MY 2021, evaluating (but not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date 

included in the petition described above and in the EU MAC Directive. Since most motor vehicle 

manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform, selecting the same date as the date in 

the EU MAC Directive has some weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 

and 2021.

The agency believes it is necessary for MVAC system redesigns for many vehicles to 

occur during a design cycle to safely use the substitute refrigerants, as just explained. 

Manufacturers are currently designing or have “locked in” designs for vehicles several model 

years into the future. The information currently before the Agency thus indicates that it would 

not be technically feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all vehicles from HFC-134a 

MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not proposing the MY 2019 date for the same reasons. However, 

we solicit comment on whether all manufacturers would be able to safely transition all vehicles 

away from HFC-134a MVAC systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019. 

We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the appropriate time for 

use of HFC-134a in MVAC systems in new vehicles to be listed as unacceptable. In recent 

meetings with the major trade associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global 

Automakers) as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers, industry

representatives indicated that some of them may have a relatively small number of vehicle

models that will not have had the opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They

also indicated that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would require longer 

product design cycles if the systems were to use substitute refrigerants. However, we do not have 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 62 of 144

sufficient non-confidential information to conclude that systems capable of using alternative 

refrigerant safely will not be “currently or potentially available” – within the meaning of section 

612 (c)(2) of the Act -- until after MY 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of 

HFC-134a in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including specific 

information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technically feasible 

because specific model vehicles cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by 

MY2021. For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will be available by

MY 2021.

Based on the information before the Agency, EPA is thus proposing to modify the listing 

of HFC-134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for light duty vehicles, while seeking comment on 

MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs later than 2021.34

EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to service existing motor 

vehicles designed to use HFC-134a. Such a change could strand the installed base of equipment 

or force retrofits to other refrigerants. In order to safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the vehicle 

design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in order to ensure the refrigerant 

can be used safely. For that reason, the three low-GWP refrigerants that currently are listed as 

acceptable in new MVACs—HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744–are not listed as acceptable to 

retrofit a system designed to use a different refrigerant. 

Once MVAC systems are designed and installed with lower GWP substitutes, they will 

likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders have expressed a concern that the price differential 

 

34 Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have applied to specified calendar years, However, 

because the MVAC system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY for purposes of this 

proposed rule. Model years cover almost two calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar year 

and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 63 of 144

between HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf 

with HFC-134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations under title VI of the 

CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful. First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a 

substitute refrigerant to ‘top-off’ a system that uses another refrigerant. Second, the original 

refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the 

CAA prior to charging with a substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery

regulations prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the system without first recovering the 

refrigerant already in the system. Therefore, it is not permissible to add HFC-134a to an MVAC 

system that contains HFO-1234yf, as may well occur if a consumer were to service his or her 

own car’s A/C system without refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings for 

HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a require the use of unique fittings for each alternative refrigerant. 

Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of 

these use conditions. 

EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC 

Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) to unacceptable for use as refrigerants in air 

conditioning systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning with MY

2017 and changing the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable beginning with MY 2021.

3. Would this action affect EPA’s light duty vehicle rule?

Today’s proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect on the MY 2017-2025 

light duty vehicle GHG standards. Those standards are established by rule and EPA is not 

reopening that rule in this proceeding. We do note, however, that today’s proposal is relevant to 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 64 of 144

one of the compliance flexibilities in the light duty vehicle standards. The light duty vehicle 

standards do not require any specific means of compliance. Manufacturers thus have the 

flexibility to either switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. The light 

duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits from use of alternative 

refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a through MY 2025, and the ability to 

generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change 

if this action is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 62804-809. (As noted above, the level of the 

standard reflects the assumption of 100% substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer 

may choose to comply with the light duty standard by a strategy not involving refrigerant 

substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed rule, if finalized, would still require the manufacturer to 

use an MVAC designed for a refrigerant other than HFC-134a.

C. Retail food refrigeration and vending machines

1. Background

Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program that is also considered a 

subset of the broader term “commercial refrigeration,” is characterized by storing and displaying, 

generally for sale, food and beverages at different temperatures for different products (e.g., 

chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating capacities of equipment vary widely. 

Vending machines are another subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate enduse within the SNAP program due to differences in where such equipment is placed and the 

additional mechanical and electronic components required to accept payment, provide the 

selected product, and prevent theft or damage from vandalism. 

Retail food refrigeration is composed of three main categories of equipment: stand-alone 

equipment; condensing units; and supermarket systems, the latter often in designs referred to as 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 65 of 144

multiplex or centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of refrigerators, 

freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with doors) where all refrigeration components are 

integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These 

systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity supply 

to begin operation. 

Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically from 1 kW to 20 kW 

(0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), 

one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external 

to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more nearby evaporator(s) used to cool 

food and beverages stored in display cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. Condensing units are 

commonly installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher 

shops. 

Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized systems. They

operate with racks of compressors installed in a machinery room; different compressors turn on 

to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design 

classifications are used: direct and indirect systems. In the United States, direct systems are the 

most widespread. At least 70 percent of supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct 

expansion (DX) systems to cool their display cases.

35 The refrigerant circulates from the 

machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in display-case heat exchangers, and then 

returns in vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk-in 

cold rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but an alternative option is 

to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a given storage room. Another type of supermarket 

 

35 http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 66 of 144

design, often referred to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate 

compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a central compressor rack 

system. Each of these smaller racks handles a portion of the supermarket load, with 5-10 such 

systems in a store.

Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and cascade refrigeration. 

Indirect systems use a chiller or other refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then 

circulated throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an indirect system rely 

on a lineup of 10-20 units, each using small charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more 

or fewer of the chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop system whereby 

the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the display cases. 

Each compact chiller is an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge, reducing the 

potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or catastrophic failures. Cascade systems use a 

compressor to raise the low-temperature coolant from low-temperature conditions up to an 

intermediate temperature while a separate refrigerant system uses a different refrigerant to 

condense the coolant. Each system within the cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge 

allowing the use of different refrigerants in each system. This application has generally used a 

low-GWP refrigerant, specifically carbon dioxide (R-744), in the low-temperature system, with a 

variety of refrigerants in the medium-temperature system.

Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the temperature required, and 

energy efficiency, among other things. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, 

other federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations 

from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as 

ammonia (R-717). Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 67 of 144

the amount of particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a number of factors 

that retailers must consider when selecting the refrigerant and operating system design. While a 

number of approaches exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple

factors, which include the following: energy efficiency; system performance; potential impact on 

community safety; ambient temperatures; potential risk to personal safety; cost; and 

minimization of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these and other

factors mean there will be a range of options, and the ultimate selection remains with the owner 

and operator of the system.

Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex systems include R-717 

and R-744. These can be used alone or in combination with other refrigerants in other parts of 

the equipment, depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary-loop contains one 

refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different refrigerant). For stand-alone refrigeration 

equipment, propane (R-290) is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also 

proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R-441A and isobutane (R-600a) be listed as acceptable 

subject to use conditions ([Date of Low GWP Refrigerants Rule]; XX FR XXXXX). The 

Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as 

acceptable subject to use conditions for vending machines (([Date of Low GWP Refrigerant 

Rule]; XX FR XXXXX). Other substitutes, such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as 

acceptable under SNAP, are currently in use in the United States, while HFOs and blends 

containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have not yet been submitted to the SNAP 

program for review. 

The most commonly-used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food refrigeration include 

HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-422D, and R-507A. HFC-134a is a non-ozone depleting 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 68 of 144

chemical with the chemical formula C2H2F4. It is used in a variety of air-conditioning and 

refrigeration end-uses, including motor vehicle air conditioners, home appliances (such as 

refrigerator-freezers), vending machines and building air-conditioning chillers. It is also used in 

other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430.

R-404A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-143a, and HFC134a with GWPs of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively. R-404A’s GWP is about 3,920 based 

on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R-404A is currently 

acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including 

retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; vending machines; 

cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process 

refrigeration.

R-407A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a 

with GWPs of 675, 3,500, and 1,430 respectively. R-407A’s GWP is about 2,100 based on the 

20/40/40 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R-407A is acceptable for a 

variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including retail food 

refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses;

commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R-407A is 

not currently on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants for vending machines.

R-422D is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-134a, and R-600a 

with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008) respectively. R-422D’s GWP is about 2,700 based 

on the approximate 65.1/31.5/3.4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon 

contained in the blend. R-422D is acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature 

refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 69 of 144

storage cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and 

industrial process refrigeration. R-422D is most commonly used to retrofit existing systems such 

as those operating on HCFC-22 and is less likely to be used in manufacturing new equipment. 

R-507A (also designated as R-507) is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC125 and HFC-143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, respectively. R-507A’s GWP is about 

3,990 based on the 50/50 mass percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R-507A is 

acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including in 

retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage 

warehouses; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration.

2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration 

(condensing units and supermarket systems)?

EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new and retrofit retail 

food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine 

blends are R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A and R-507A. 

EPA is not aware of any significant use in the United States of the blends R-407B, R-421B, R428A or R-434A in retail food refrigeration equipment. In addition, EPA is proposing to change 

the listing of HFC-227ea in new retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to 

unacceptable.36 These ten refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. They are 

nonflammable. They contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of “VOC,” with the 

exception of small amounts of R-290 and R-600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected 

to contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relatively low in toxicity, and practices 

common in the refrigeration industry ensure that their workplace exposure limits are not 

 

36 EPA has not previously found HFC-227ea acceptable as a retrofit refrigerant in this end-use.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 70 of 144

exceeded. These practices include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sheets 

and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry. Applicable workplace exposure 

limits for the compounds comprising these refrigerants—HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC143a, HFC-227ea, R-290 and R-600a—include Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits 

(WEELs) of 1000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) from the American 

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer’s recommended occupational exposure 

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

from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure 

limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH).

EPA believes there are several HFC and non-HFC substitutes that provide lower overall 

risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable and that are currently used in

commercial refrigeration. For both new and retrofit equipment, acceptable refrigerants that pose 

less risk to human health and the environment include HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-424A, R-426A, and R-438A. Additionally, in new retail food 

refrigeration, three other substitute refrigerants are listed as acceptable: R-717 vapor 

compression with secondary loop, R-410A, and R-744. 

a) New condensing units and supermarket systems

EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable in new retail food refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket 

systems) as of January 1, 2016: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, R-404A and R-507A, are currently in
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 71 of 144

extensive use in the retail food refrigeration market. EPA is also aware of some use of R-422A 

and R-422D in retrofit situations only, not in new equipment. We are not aware of the use of any

of the other six refrigerants in retail food refrigeration, although we seek comment on such use. 

Other acceptable alternatives that pose lower risk are also in use in the various types of 

retail food refrigeration equipment. For condensing unit systems, R-407C and R-407F are in use 

in the United States, and R-744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration trials in Europe 

and elsewhere. The GWP for R-407C (a blend of HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a) is about 

1,770, and R-407F (another blend of HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a) has a GWP of about 

1,820. As a comparison, R-404A has a GWP of 3,920, R-507A has a GWP of 3,990, and the 

other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. 

For multiplex rack systems, substitutes R-407A, R-407F, and R-744 are all currently in 

use in the United States and can be used more safely than the substances that EPA is proposing 

to list as unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In addition, testing 

is underway with HCs and HFC/HFO blends, though these refrigerants have not been submitted 

to SNAP for review in this application. Each of these four substitutes as well as other substitutes

in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe for the ozone layer. R-407A, R407F, and R-744 all have toxicity lower than or comparable to the refrigerants proposed 

unacceptable. None of the three examples that would remain on the acceptable list is flammable,

and none is considered a VOC. 

b) Retrofit condensing units and supermarket systems

EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable in retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket 

systems) as of January 1, 2016: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 72 of 144

R-434A, and R-507A. We are aware of four of these nine refrigerants being used to retrofit 

retail food equipment: R-404A, R-507A, R-422A, and R-422D. We are not aware of any use of 

the other five refrigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek comment on any

such use. This action would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for these nine 

refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 

2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be 

allowed to continue to operate and to be serviced using those refrigerants.

For condensing units and supermarket systems, where retrofits are common, blends such 

as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm for retrofits, rather than the four identified in the 

previous paragraph. The blends R-407A and R-407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2,107 and 

1,825, respectively. Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as acceptable for use as

retrofits in retail food refrigeration include HFC-134a, R-407C, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R426A and R-427A and they have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of 

the other nine blends we are proposing as unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 

to 3,985.

An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted equipment could primarily

affect the many stores that operate using HCFC-22, but also those using CFC-12, R-502, and 

several HCFC-containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. This is because as EPA 

reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores will have less material to meet 

service demands. While the ODS phaseout does not require owners to retrofit their equipment, a 

decrease in the availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those stores to 

consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain refrigerants would not be acceptable. For 

instance, some stores currently using HCFC-22 may choose to retrofit as the production and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 73 of 144

import of HCFC-22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per 40 CFR 82.16. EPA 

recently proposed HCFC-22 allowance allocations for the 2014-2019 time period (December 24, 

2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for 

retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate with the ODS they are 

currently using for longer than they might otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this

question. In response to this question, we note that many retail chains have been able to 

minimize the impact of the HCFC-22 phasedown by maintaining their own stockpile of HCFC22, for instance by recovering from stores that are decommissioned or retrofitted and using such 

supplies in stores that continue to operate with HCFC-22. We also note that some service is 

being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds of HCFC-22 being 

reclaimed every year since at least 2000, and over seven million pounds every year since 2006.

37

While we don’t know how this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows 

that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited newly-produced supplies that 

are being reduced by the phaseout.

Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC-22, we believe that the majority of retrofits 

are planned for reasons other than the supply of the refrigerant currently in-use, for instance 

during planned maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy efficient equipment. 

We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards lower-GWP blends such as R-407A 

and R-407F instead of R-404A and R-507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that other

options, given the multi-year history of their successful use, are sufficient to meet the various 

 

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

www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 74 of 144

features—such as capacity, efficiency, materials compatibility, cost and supply—that affect the 

choice of a retrofit refrigerant.38

3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment?

a) New stand-alone equipment

EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other refrigerants for new 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 

2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, 

R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately

600 up to approximately 3,990.

Acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment include R-744 and R-290. EPA 

recently proposed to find R-600a and R-441A acceptable subject to use conditions in new standalone equipment ([Date of Low GWP refrigerants rule]; XX FR XXXXX). These existing and 

potential substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 

1,430, R-404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of approximately

3,990. None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. 

While R-290, R-600a, and R-441A are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as 

refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting national ambient air quality

standards. At the time we listed R-290 as acceptable subject to use conditions, we analyzed the 

potential air quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this potential risk to the 

 

38 For example, see CCAC 2012.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 75 of 144

environment to be significant (ICF, 2014e).39 We have likewise proposed to exempt R-600a and 

R-441A used in stand-alone equipment from the venting prohibition ([Date of Low GWP 

refrigerants rule]; XX FR XXXXX). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the 

use conditions specified (or proposed for R-600a and R-441A) would ensure that they do not 

pose greater risk than any of the substitutes currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone 

equipment.40 None of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable or that we have proposed to 

add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents significant human health toxicity concerns or 

other ecosystem impacts. Apart from R-290 and R-744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for 

new stand-alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in Section VI below) 

and/or do not appear to be in production.

We understand that R-290 is already in use globally, including in the United States, and 

that R-600a is in use outside of the United State as well as in test market trials in the United 

States. We believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority of the current market 

for use in stand-alone equipment. We note that there may be a need to modify the equipment 

design in order to meet the use conditions for R-290 and the proposed use conditions for R-600a 

and R-441A ([DATE of Low GWP refrigerants rule]; XX FR XXXXX). Because there are other 

substitutes that pose lower risk, we are proposing to change the listing to unacceptable for new 

stand-alone equipment of the following refrigerants: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, 

R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-

 

39 EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition 

found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871).

40 The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding 

them acceptable subject to use conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2009–0286) and information is found in a SNAP proposed rule signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA-HQOAR-2013-0748).
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 76 of 144

422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

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

b) Retrofit stand-alone equipment

EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from acceptable to 

unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand-alone equipment as of January 1, 2016. This action 

would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment 

retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. For instance, equipment retrofitted to 

R-404A or R-507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those 

refrigerants.

While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as acceptable for this purpose. For equipment still 

operating using ozone-depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other than R404A and R-507A that present lower overall risk to human health and the environment that are 

available. Our analysis indicates that other options such as HFC-134a can be used to retrofit 

stand-alone units.

4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?

a) New vending machines

EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other refrigerants for new 

vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other 

refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 

R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E. These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately 3,990.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 77 of 144

Acceptable existing substitutes with lower GWPs that pose less risk to human health and 

the environment in this end-use include R-744, which is currently being used in this end-use. In 

addition, EPA recently proposed to find R-600a, R-290 and R-441A acceptable subject to use 

conditions in new vending machines ([Date of Low GWP refrigerants rule]; XX FR XXXXX).

We note that some redesign would be required to meet the use conditions set for all three of these 

substitutes—R-600a, R-290 and R-441A— in the recent proposal (XX FR XXXXX).

These four substitutes (R-744 and the three proposed hydrocarbons) have GWPs ranging 

from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, R-404A with a GWP of approximately

3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of these substitutes currently

listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While the HCs (R-441A, R-600a and R290) are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end-use would not 

significantly affect meeting national ambient air quality standards. (ICF 2014).

41 These three 

substitutes are also flammable; however, the proposed use conditions for these three substitutes 

would ensure they do not pose greater risk than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable 

([Date of Low GWP refrigerants rule]; XX FR XXXXX). None of the substitutes currently listed 

or proposed to be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity concerns or other 

ecosystem impacts. Hence, we find that R-290, R-600a and R-441A are potentially available and 

present a lower overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC-134a and the other 

refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending machines.

For new vending machines, EPA has found R-744 acceptable without use conditions.

While the vast majority of vending machines using non-ODS refrigerant currently use HFC-

 

41 EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 (propane) R-600a (isobutane) and R-441A in vending machines from the 

venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871).
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 78 of 144

134a, units are now being manufactured to use R-744. At least one major global buyer of 

vending machines is committed to transitioning all of their new U.S.-placed equipment to R744.42 Given the large market share that this company holds, it is likely that R-744 components 

and units are already or will shortly become a viable option for all vending machine OEMs and 

purchasers.

Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R-744 and the other hydrocarbons that EPA has 

proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in vending machines, the use conditions 

that we have proposed to establish for the hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks 

based on other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC-134a, we propose to change 

the listing of HFC-134a and the alternatives listed in the first paragraph of this section to 

unacceptable in new vending machines.

b) Retrofit vending machines

EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from acceptable to 

unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending machines operating on CFC-12, HCFC-22, and 

blends containing HCFCs, as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing 

existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to 

use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including those systems previously using ozonedepleting refrigerants such as HCFC-22. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A 

prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those refrigerants.

Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain acceptable for retrofitting 

vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-

 

42 The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new equipment 

(http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf).
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 79 of 144

125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407C, R-417A, R-417C , R-421A, R-422B, R422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02. 

These refrigerants have GWPs from approximately 50 to approximately 3,100, while the two 

refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R-404A and R-507A, have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, 

respectively. In this respect, these two refrigerants present a higher risk to human health and the 

environment. Looking at the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining 

acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment: they are nonflammable, 

they are not VOCs, and they do not exhibit significant human health toxicity concerns or other 

ecosystem impacts. Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment than R-404A and R-507A.

5. When would the listings change?

Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that apply within 

commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date—January 1, 2016. Looking at the 

intersection between the end-use and the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as

of January 1, 2016, allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new installations or 

manufacturing equipment lines in these end-uses to be redesigned to use a substitute to the 

refrigerants we are proposing to find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow 

any plans for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the multiple other 

substitutes that would remain acceptable. For many years other refrigerants such as R-407A and 

R-407F that would remain on the acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining 

market share in supermarket applications, in both new equipment and as retrofit fluids.

43 As part 

 

43 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 80 of 144

of this market expansion, manufacturers have developed equipment to use them, and that 

equipment is available to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these 

other refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built up the skills, 

knowledge and experience to more fully utilize these refrigerants in a timeframe that would 

accommodate January 1, 2016 as the date of unacceptability. For stand-alone equipment and 

vending machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are acceptable or are 

proposed acceptable with use conditions, including R-744, R-290 and R-600a.

44 EPA requests 

comment on this proposed date. EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of 

substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition within the proposed timeframe.

6. Applicability to service of existing equipment

As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to service existing retail food 

refrigeration equipment or vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 

2016. We recognize the value of the currently installed appliances and are not seeking to shorten 

their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that servicing for existing equipment is often 

accomplished with recovered and recycled refrigerants. 

EPA seeks comments on allowing for the continued servicing of the existing retail food 

refrigeration equipment and vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 

2016.

7. Energy efficiency consideration

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

under the SNAP program, and it is not used as one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA 

recognizes that the energy efficiency of particular models of equipment is a significant factor 

 

44 Ibid.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 81 of 144

when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. We also recognize that the energy

efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the 

particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses. 

Throughout the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has seen the energy

efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment increase, despite changing refrigerant 

options. In some cases, this was because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique 

properties that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In addition, technological 

improvement in equipment designs and controls has increased energy efficiency. Although 

today’s proposal would eliminate some refrigerant choices, we do not believe it would have a 

detrimental effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are multiple case 

studies available that highlight the energy efficiency gains achieved by some of the low-GWP 

refrigerants, such as R-744, R-290 and R-600a, that are available or potentially available for the 

end-uses addressed in this proposal. We welcome additional information and comment on 

improved energy efficiency associated with switching refrigerants.

For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theoretical analysis (Emerson 2014) 

examined the energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of which would remain acceptable under 

this proposal, against that of R-404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this 

analysis found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in the lowtemperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% 

increase in the medium-temperature part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared 

food). Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medium-temperature equipment, 

the net effect would be for the alternatives to use less energy than R-404A. This manufacturer’s 

analyses showed similar increases in energy efficiency compared to R-404A in supermarkets and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 82 of 144

stand-alone equipment for a variety of low-GWP refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP 

but are in development.

While that manufacturer’s analysis showed slightly higher energy consumption than R134a in theoretical calculations for stand-alone equipment, other results with actual equipment 

have shown otherwise. For instance, in stand-alone equipment, one user reported that “HC 

freezers are significantly more energy-efficient and use a natural hydrocarbon refrigerant with 

lower global warming potential than the HFC refrigerants commonly used in US freezers” (Ben 

and Jerry’s, 2014). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that while 

introducing over one million units using R-744, they have increased the energy efficiency of 

their cooling equipment over 40% since 2000, many years after they adopted HFC-134a (CocaCola, 2014).

Finally, we note that energy efficiency is influenced, but not determined, by the 

refrigerant. As new products are designed for the use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers 

have the opportunity to change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant’s characteristics. 

The redesign and development phase is also an opportunity to improve other components that 

will affect the overall efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors and 

compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved insulation (e.g., on display

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

The United State Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under separate 

rulemaking and separate authority, energy efficiency requirements for several types of 

commercial refrigeration equipment, including products that would be affected by this proposal. 

While EPA’s proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use in new 

equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject to the DOE requirements and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 83 of 144

would normally need to meet the standards set.45 As discussed above, EPA does not believe this 

proposal would prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant 

models are already commercially available that do not use the refrigerants EPA has proposed as 

unacceptable. EPA requests comment on the effects this proposal would have on the energy

efficiency of the commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the effect, if any, 

this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards.

8. What other options is EPA considering?

EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for several other substitutes

in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking comment on these substitutes.

a) New and retrofit condensing units and supermarket systems

When analyzing supermarket retail food refrigeration systems, as an alternative to changing the 

listing to unacceptable for HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,

and R-434A, we are considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these 

chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket systems. Supermarkets could 

use systems employing one of the many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the 

United States, such as distributed refrigeration, secondary-loop, and cascade designs. To set the 

charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge size limit that is necessary, but not fully

sufficient, to achieve a Gold-Level Store Certification under EPA’s GreenChill Store 

 

45 Refrigeration equipment in the applicable covered equipment class would still be subject to DOE’s 

standards, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected 

to undue hardship by a regulatory standard prescribed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed by 

Congress), the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 

U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief 

from a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated 

that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 84 of 144

Certification Program.46 That specification requires that the store must achieve an average HFC 

refrigerant charge equal to or less than 1.25 pounds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator 

heat load.

47

For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction requiring a small 

charge is to limit the amount of high-GWP refrigerant that would be emitted in a catastrophic 

event. However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are 

available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small charge size adequately 

addresses the greater risk they pose. Further, we recognize that using a lower-GWP refrigerant, 

such as R-407A or R-407F, is also possible in small-charge systems, and several stores are 

operating with such systems today.

For retrofits, two primary factors lead us to consider a use restriction for a small charge 

size in place of listing the substitutes as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket 

systems in operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants today, and there may be some concern

that not all could be retrofitted with the lower-GWP blends, i.e., whether there truly are 

alternatives “available” for the purpose. As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First, 

based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs today would be at 

least 18 years old, beyond the typical average lifetime.

48 Because it is typical to retire older 

equipment before newer equipment, it is likely that many stores using those refrigerants would 

be decommissioned, or the refrigeration systems would be replaced rather than retrofitted. 

 

46 Additional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/.

47 In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and 

must meet a store-wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15%in order to be certified at the Gold 

level.

48 For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime of medium and large commercial refrigeration 

equipment is between seven and 15 years.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 85 of 144

Second, we do not see an impediment in the continued operation of stores currently using 

refrigerants proposed unacceptable for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). We 

know that some stores have systems that continue to use CFC-12 and/or R-502, the production 

and import of which was phased out in 1996, and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can 

be achieved, if desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the refrigerants 

we propose as unacceptable. Finally, where retrofits to refrigerants that are not proposed as 

unacceptable have occurred, the industry has been able to achieve acceptable capacity and 

efficiency levels. All these factors point to the ability of industry to make business decisions on 

which stores to decommission or retrofit and when to do so while maintaining their operations 

without the need to rely on the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable.

Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list of acceptable 

retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive for stores with older systems (more likely

to leak) to continue use of ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC-22 but also CFC-12, R502, and multiple blends containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or replace those systems with a 

new refrigerant. While production and import of HCFC-22 and all other HCFCs used in the 

acceptable retrofit blends are capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozonedepleting refrigerants into the atmosphere. The additional refrigerant that they would need to 

service that leaky equipment might not have been produced in the first place if the demand was 

not there. Nonetheless, given the tight controls on production and import of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited supplies are directed and 

where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant other than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable. 

EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above, particularly the availability

of substitutes able to work with the design of existing systems that might be retrofitted, and the 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 86 of 144

possible perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to operate older, less 

efficient, and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also requests comments on the specified charge size 

limit and how it would be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing units 

and supermarket systems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction rather than take final action 

by listing some or all of these refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing units and supermarket 

systems.

b) New stand-alone equipment and vending machines

For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines, we are 

considering maintaining the acceptability status of HFC-134a and blends with a lower GWP—

FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03—subject to a use 

restriction. One reason to maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC134a, would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the primary refrigerant employed 

in these end-uses while new low-GWP substitutes are developed. 

For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes other than HFC-134a 

are available for low-temperature refrigeration applications, for instance, for ice-cream novelty

or microwavable frozen-food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use restriction 

that HFC-134a could only be used in vending machines designed for, and maintaining, an 

internal temperature of 32oF (0oC) or below. However, we believe that the availability of R-744, 

which is listed as acceptable, and the availability of HCs, which we have proposed to list as 

acceptable, do not support such an action. We are requesting comment on the viability of these 

substitutes in low-temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the supply of 

components designed for R-744, hydrocarbons, or other potential substitutes for use in lowtemperature vending machines and how that supply might affect the ability of manufacturers to 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 87 of 144

continue to provide such equipment to meet these applications and customers’ requirements 

including energy efficiency goals. 

For new stand-alone equipment, we note that HCs pose additional challenges related to 

their flammability. Some stand-alone retail food refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have 

required design changes, and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits, 

raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications within this end-use. EPA is 

considering adding a use restriction limiting the use of HFC-134a and the blends mentioned to 

only larger-sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller-sized units. To determine the 

dividing line between “small” and “large” units, we are considering options such as the number 

of doors within a single unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume. 

Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it because we feel other 

options exist to design units using other less harmful alternatives, even in large stand-alone units. 

The SNAP acceptability listing for R-744 in stand-alone equipment does not include a restriction

on charge size or any other use condition. We also recognize the ability to apply separate 

refrigeration circuits within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit with up to 150 grams of R290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to 150 grams of R-290 to cool the 

rest of the unit. Such dual-circuit designs might be particularly effective if different parts of the 

unit are used for different products that require different temperature conditions or have different 

refrigeration loads.

EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would determine what 

size of a unit could not use substitutes that would remain on the acceptable list under this 

proposal or that we have recently proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 88 of 144

line would be drawn; and how such a use restriction could avoid unintended consequences such 

as the over-sizing of units to allow the use of HFC-134a.

EPA believes that R-744, an acceptable option for both new stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and R-290, an acceptable substitute for new 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending 

machines, could satisfy the vast majority of new equipment in these end-uses. However, we seek 

additional information and studies that would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g., 3-

door and other large retail food refrigeration stand-alone equipment) could meet the charge size 

limit in the case of R-290. We also seek information regarding whether certain applications (e.g., 

low-temperature vending machines) could be effective while maintaining current energy

efficiency levels in the case of R-744. 

c) Retrofit stand-alone equipment and vending machines

EPA has proposed to find R-404A and R-507A unacceptable for retrofits in both standalone equipment and vending machines. EPA is considering also changing the acceptability

status of several other refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option, we would change the 

status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food 

refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and RS-44 (2003 formulation). Likewise, this option would 

change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit 

vending machines: KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-417A, 

R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-24 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 89 of 144

(2002 formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range from 1,505 to 

3,985. 

These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC-134a, which would remain acceptable 

for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk to human health and the environment. Similar 

to HFC-134a, these other refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxicity, flammability, 

ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC-134a would be the most likely refrigerant to 

be used to retrofit stand-alone equipment and vending machines still operating on ozonedepleting refrigerant. EPA questions whether the other refrigerants listed above would serve any 

retrofit need, and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce overall risk to human health 

and the environment. EPA believes some existing vending machines and stand-alone equipment 

still use class I ozone-depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 and R-502 and that even more 

equipment continues to use class II ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC-22. Other than 

HFC-134a, we do not believe there are substitutes that would likely be used for most of this 

equipment for purposes of retrofitting.

We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes, in addition to R-404A and 

R-507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in vending machines and stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment. In particular, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock of 

equipment operating with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the likelihood that they will require a 

retrofit before being replaced with a new unit, and the substitute(s) that could be and are likely to 

be used.

d) Status of R-404A and R-507A in other end-uses

Considering the high GWP of R-404A, R-507A, and some of the other blends proposed 

as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them unacceptable in several other end-uses, besides 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 90 of 144

retail food refrigeration and vending machines, such as cold storage rooms and warehouses, ice 

machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial process refrigeration. We believe that the 

substitutes that are being used in retail food refrigeration, such as R-407A and R-407F, would be 

theoretically viable in these other end-uses too, given that the operational characteristics of such 

equipment, such as temperature to be maintained, are similar. Those two substitutes, and others, 

have been found acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned. In addition, low-GWP substitutes

have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these end-uses, and research is underway in 

the others. For example, for the industrial process refrigeration end-use, R-744, R-717, and 

several HCs have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R-744 is acceptable for 

new equipment, and R-717 is in widespread use. R-744 for refrigerated transport and HCs for ice 

machines have been tested and, although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the 

United States. In these two end-uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is similar to that for 

supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of GWPs. Several HFC blends with GWPs 

considerably lower than those of R-404A and R-507A are being used in retail food refrigeration, 

especially in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned; 

however, we have limited knowledge of their use in these other end-uses. For that reason, we 

have not proposed finding R-404A and R-507A unacceptable in these other end-uses. 

EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., R744, R-717, and HCs) and other HFC-blends (e.g., R-407A and R-407F) and the possibility of 

listing R-404A, R-507A, and other high-GWP blends unacceptable in any or all of these four 

end-uses—cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial process 

refrigeration. EPA also solicits comments on the feasibility of the proposed deadlines and 

whether earlier or later dates would be more appropriate.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 91 of 144

D. Foam blowing agents

EPA is proposing to change the listings for HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa and 

blends thereof from acceptable to unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017 for all foam end-uses 

and applications except spray foam. Specific end-uses and applications include: 1) rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam; 2) flexible polyurethane; 3) rigid polyurethane: commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels; 4) rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); 5) rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; 6) integral skin polyurethane; 7) 

polystyrene (extruded sheet); 8) polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; 9) polyolefin; and 

10) phenolic insulation board and bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings 

from acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the following end-uses 

as of January 1, 2017: 1) Formacel B in polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); 2) 

Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin polyurethane, 

polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; 3) Formacel Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance 

foam, rigid polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane 

slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin polyurethane, and 

polystyrene extruded sheet; 4) HFC-143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock; and 5) 

HFC-134a and blends thereof in spray foam.

1. Background

Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are manufactured using 

blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the material’s structure. The foam plastics 

manufacturing industries, the markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely

varied. The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation, cushioning, furniture, 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 92 of 144

packaging materials, containers, flotation devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some 

foams are rigid with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can contribute to the 

foam’s ability to insulate. Other foams are open-celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at 

the time the foam is blown, as for flexible foams.

Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these applications. 

CFCs and HCFCs were typically used given their favorable chemical properties. CFCs and 

HCFCs are controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the 

CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for CFCs and section 

605(b)-(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs under section 605(a). The regulations 

implementing section 610 of the CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products 

blown with class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class II ODS, the 

ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products as defined at 40 CFR 82.62. 

The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non-ODS blowing agents, 

including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, 

water, and methyl formate. In addition, low-GWP fluorinated compounds in use include HFO1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)). 

Blowing agents are approved on an end-use basis. The SNAP program considers the 

following end-uses:

a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in domestic refrigerators and 

freezers.

b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels) includes 

buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors, vending machines, 

coolers, and refrigerated transport vehicles.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 93 of 144

c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for panels and pipes.

d. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock includes insulation for 

roofing and walls.

e. Flexible polyurethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles.

f. Integral skin polyurethane includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles.

g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging and buoyancy or flotation.

h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation for roofing, walls, floors, 

and pipes.

i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.

j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for roofing and walls. 

2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?

EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and any blends containing these blowing agents for all foam end-uses 

and applications except for spray foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose to change 

the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the 

following end-uses: 1) Formacel B in polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); 2) Formacel 

TI in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and 

sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded 

sheet and polyolefin; 3) Formacel Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane 

(commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene 

(extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and 

4) HFC-143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January 1, 2017—that is, it 

would be prohibited to blow foam using these blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 94 of 144

2017. In addition, we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam products or 

products containing closed cell foam that contain any of the blowing agents listed as 

unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the 

foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in 

particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. Finally, we are providing a limited 

exception to the date when the unacceptability determinations apply for certain military and 

space applications where there is documentation that additional time is required to complete 

qualification testing. 

a. What other foam blowing agents are being used? 

Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The opportunity to use 

hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2 , and water in the 1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in 

the United States has allowed many foam blowing end-uses and applications to transition from 

ODS, thus reducing the end-uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have been a low-GWP and 

cost-effective alternative available for large parts of the foam sector, particularly in flexible 

polyurethane foam, polystyrene sheet foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, polyurethane and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams. HCs also are used in 

most of the other end-uses, but less extensively than in these six end-uses. However, 

flammability of foam blowing agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray

foam applications. 

Over the past ten years both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives have expanded 

both the list of options for specific foam uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are 

now used has also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been 

introduced during the past several years. Many end users have indicated interest in these newer 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 95 of 144

alternatives, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam products manufactured with the 

foam blowing agent. Production volumes for some of these newer substitutes are expanding 

rapidly to keep pace with growing demand. For example, HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene have recently been listed as acceptable. HFO-1336mzz(Z) is currently 

under review by EPA as a substitute foam blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not 

raise the flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end-uses where flammable 

agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for retooling facilities that use the blowing 

agents or that incorporate the foam product into another product will vary depending on the 

substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as household refrigerator 

manufacturers have already begun the testing of and transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes for 

foam blowing. 

b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam 

blowing agents?

i. Proposed unacceptable agents

The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 794 for 

HFC-365mfc to 4470 for HFC-143a, which is significantly higher than the GWPs of other 

acceptable substitutes. The HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs 

that vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for blends are 140 to 1500 

for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z-6, 740 to 

1030 for blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial 

blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc. All of the 

HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable consist of compounds that are 

non-ozone-depleting and are VOC-exempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 96 of 144

alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with required or 

recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC-134a, HFC-143a, and HFC-245fa 

can be used consistent with their respective AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 

ppm (8-hr TWA) in the foam end-uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents 

that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Formacel 

TI, blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC365mfc and HFC-143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 may be flammable 

depending on the exact composition, with the less flammable or nonflammable formulations 

having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as 1300 to 1500. 

In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential climate impact from 

foam blowing agents is the insulation value of the blown foam. This may matter for rigid 

insulation foams, where the foam blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid 

polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane spray, commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet; 

rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic insulation board 

and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas 

emissions from power plants if the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency and less 

need for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons and CO2 may

provide less insulation value to an insulation foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent 

information on some of the newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as 

HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these foam blowing 

agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and HFC predecessors 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 97 of 144

and therefore may be of interest to companies considering transition to more energy-efficient 

options. In addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value may still not 

impact the foam’s overall energy efficiency where thicker foam is used. Because of the variety of 

foam blowing agents available in each end-use, we believe that there are sufficient options that 

will not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions.

ii. Rigid polyurethane appliance foam

For rigid polyurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C649), CO2, vacuum 

panels, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives (in-kind and not-in-kind) with GWPs 

that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing appliance foam consistent with required or recommended 

workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives 

listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene contains chlorine and has measurable 

ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.0003450, 51 is roughly one order of magnitude higher than the ODP 

of HFC-134a which is considered to have zero ODP.52 Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-

ene’s impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant.53

Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and 

 

49 These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, 

cyclopentane, and hexane.

50 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on 

Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.

51 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–

10874, 2010.

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

53 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 98 of 144

methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the flammable 

compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA 

regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned 

above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

iii. Flexible polyurethane

For flexible polyurethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair cushions, shoe soles and 

other applications, acceptable substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), Exxsol 

blowing agents, CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., methyl formate), HFC-152a, and water with GWPs 

ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed for flexible polyurethane, all have an ODP of 

zero. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for 

blowing flexible polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain 

compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this 

paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and hydrocarbons are flammable, and 

the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this enduse can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In 

this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the 

other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to 

human health and the environment.

iv. Rigid polyurethane spray foam

For rigid polyurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, and 

buoyancy, acceptable substitutes include HFC-245fa, commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 99 of 144

HFC-227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, blends of HFC365mfc and at least 5% HFC-245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs ranging from zero to 1100. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for spray

foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of 

Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition 

of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an 

ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. 

Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications, in part because they are 

applied onsite in pressurized equipment with spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, 

flammable substances such as tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to 

assist end-users in addressing the flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this enduse (Exxsol blowing agents and ecomateTM); however, these alternatives have limited, if any, use 

in spray foams in the United States.54, 55 Flammability risks are more difficult to mitigate than in 

most other foam applications because, unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation 

can be provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the lower 

flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all electrical fixtures explosion proof when 

applying spray foam in place in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC-134a 

and blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are proposing that 

 

54 UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task 

Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013.

55 UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This 

document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-AssessmentReport.pdf.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 100 of 144

HFC-245fa; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and blends of HFC-365mfc and at least 5% HFC-245fa 

remain acceptable in spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce 

overall risk compared to the available flammable alternatives. The three HFC blends that remain 

acceptable reduce overall risks to human health and the environment compared to HFC-134a and 

Formacel TI in this application because they have lower GWPs. 

v. Rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and 

sandwich panels

For rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, which 

includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy, and 

refrigerated transport vehicles, acceptable alternatives include saturated light HCs (C3-C6), 

ecomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a 

significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam for 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, consistent with required or recommended 

workplace exposure limits. With the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes 

listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above 

for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is 

expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, 

ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are 

flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable 

compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 101 of 144

regulations and fire codes. In these applications, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel 

Z-6 and Formacel B have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 

mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the 

environment.

vi. Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam

For rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, 

water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to seven. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing 

slabstock foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the 

exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, 

its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of 

the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl 

formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the 

flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes 

mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the 

environment.

vii. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock

For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, saturated light HCs 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 102 of 144

(C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, HFO1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs 

that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing laminated boardstock consistent with required or recommended 

workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these 

alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives 

listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above 

for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene’s impact on 

global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various 

options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are 

flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable 

compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA 

regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have 

significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this 

paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

viii. Polystyrene extruded sheet

For polystyrene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include saturated light 

hydrocarbons (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), and 

HFC-152a. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant 

concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene foam 

consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs 

and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the 

definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 103 of 144

the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, 

and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the 

flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

Formacel TI and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available 

substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment.

ix. Polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet

For polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable substitutes include saturated 

light hydrocarbons (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), 

HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze(E). These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity

is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded 

polystyrene foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the 

exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an 

ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFC-152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability

hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process 

of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available 

substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health 

and the environment.

x. Integral skin polyurethane
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 104 of 144

In integral skin polyurethane, which includes foam in car steering wheels, dashboards, 

and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol 

blowing agents, methyl formate, ecomateTM, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Toxicity is not 

a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral skin 

polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With 

the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are 

exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, 

its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of 

the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate, ecomateTM, Exxsol 

blowing agents, HFC-152a, and hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. 

The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher 

GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing 

overall risks to human health and the environment.

xi. Polyolefin foam

For polyolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol 

blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, blends of HFC-152a and saturated light HCs, HFO1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs 

that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing polyolefin foam consistent with required or recommended 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 105 of 144

workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs, HC blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, 

these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the 

substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various options listed 

in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, 

and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this 

end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. 

In this end-use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have 

significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this 

paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

xii. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock

In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes insulation for roofing and 

walls, acceptable substitutes include saturated light HCs (C3-C6),), CO2, 2-chloropropane, water, 

Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO-1234ze(E), and HFC-152a. These substitutes have 

GWPs ranging from 1 to 124.Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because 

they may be used for blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended 

workplace exposure limits. With the exception of 2-chloropropane, hydrocarbons, and Exxsol 

blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of 

VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various 

substitutes listed in this paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the 

flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 106 of 144

this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

For the foam end-uses listed above, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated substitutes are 

being used today in the U.S.; EPA recognizes that the formulator and systems house will 

consider other criteria including toxicity, flammability, and local air quality. However, given the 

range of substitutes available, we believe that there are other alternatives available for 

formulators or systems houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than the 

HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be listed as unacceptable.

c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing foams?

EPA is proposing to regulate foam blowing agents contained in the cells of closed cell 

foams and proposes to consider these foams and products containing them to be subject to the 

proposed unacceptability determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in 

manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act refers to “replacing” ODS 

with substitutes. In the case of the foam blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted 

unacceptability determinations as referring solely to replacing the foam blowing agent and have 

not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam 

blowing agent may not be used in or imported into the United States. However, products made 

with unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example, refrigerators containing 

appliance foam blown with the unacceptable blowing agent HCFC-141b may still be imported 

into the United States, even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC-141b as an unacceptable 

foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). Under this interpretation of our 

SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final the foam blowing agents we are proposing to 

find unacceptable would be prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but 

foam products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture made with these 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 107 of 144

unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported. 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation for closed cell foams that 

would result in prohibiting both import and manufacture of products made with the blowing 

agents proposed to be unacceptable. This approach would have an effect similar to the earlier 

nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam blowing agents, prohibiting 

import and distribution of such products. For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained 

in cells after the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end-uses that contain 

closed-cell foams include rigid polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane: spray, 

commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid 

polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene (extruded sheet); 

polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses containing open cell foams include flexible polyurethane and 

integral skin polyurethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent is not retained 

and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open cell product blown with an unacceptable 

foam blowing agent (or products containing such an open cell foam) would not contain any of 

that agent when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would still retain 

some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is seeking comment on whether the 

Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to products with closed cell 

foam since the product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus is 

replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency

should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products 

containing open cell foam, and in particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 108 of 144

d. When would the listings change?

Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for foam blowing agents as 

of January 1, 2017. Based on information concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA 

believes this date allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing agent. 

However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of January 1, 2016. The foam 

industry was able to convert from HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 to other acceptable substitutes 

between EPA’s proposed unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final 

determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the unacceptable HCFCs 

must transition by March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA also provided an additional 18 months for 

this transition for marine flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1, 

2010, for a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in extruded polystyrene foam 

boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is requesting comment on using January 1, 

2017 as the date on which foam must not be blown using HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, 

HFC-143a and blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6. We are also 

seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by January 1, 2016. In particular, 

we request comment on whether these dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the 

foam product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial refrigeration foam used in 

transport refrigeration), and whether there are any specific foam end-uses or applications that 

may require additional time and, if so, how long and why. Based on this information, EPA could 

consider grandfathering options for foam blowing agents in specific end-uses or could provide a 

different date for use to be unacceptable. 

e. Narrowed Use Limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 109 of 144

applications

EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability determination for HFC 

and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications. 

EPA is also proposing that the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a 

narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and aeronautics application would need 

to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of their 

analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several unique performance 

requirements related to weapon systems that require extensive testing prior to qualifying 

alternatives for HFC-containing foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are 

anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the proposed January 1, 2017 

date, in a very small number of cases, the timeframes associated with testing and qualifications 

for weapon systems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower-GWP alternatives may not 

be available at this time in certain specialty applications with unique military requirements such 

as undersea; aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare systems. In the case of 

space- and aeronautics- related applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, including 

certain mission-critical applications such as foam blowing for which appropriate substitutes have 

not yet been identified. Past experience indicates that transitions away from CFC- and HCFCblown foams in similar applications took several years due to the challenging operational 

environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with human-rated space flight 

systems. 

Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a restricted agent within 

the narrowed use limits category must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes 

or alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to undertake a thorough technical 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 110 of 144

investigation of alternatives to the otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required 

to report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these results, and retain 

them in their files for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. 

The Agency has guidance describing additional documentation users should include for 

narrowed use applications. [Cite to name of guidance and where it is available to the public] This 

information includes descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety

standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for 

switching.

EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications In addition, EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for 

this narrowed use limitation, recognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in advance of 

2022, the Agency may need to revisit and adjust the end date.

f. Summary

EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam end-uses. In 

particular, EPA is interested in whether there are specific uses other than spray foam that require 

the use of HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B, 

Formacel TI, or Formacel Z-6 for reasons of fire safety or technical feasibility. We request 

comment on whether closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams should 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 111 of 144

be subject to the unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation would 

otherwise only apply to the use of the foam blowing agent. We also seek comment on whether 

the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and 

products containing open cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. 

EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an appropriate length of time 

for transition and whether there should be different dates for certain foam end-use due to 

technical challenges that may exist for some foam end-uses but not all. For example, EPA 

requests comment on whether additional time is needed for implementation of revisions in 

applicable local building codes. EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of 

substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe proposed in this 

action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed exception for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications as described above.

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?

The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and imports. EPA 

understands that some manufacturers may be interested in whether the listing decisions, if 

finalized as proposed, would apply to their products. EPA has previously responded to comments 

about the applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most recently, in a 

final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment concerning whether 

appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have larger charge sizes than those 

being sold in the United States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being 

established in that rule). EPA stated that:

Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 112 of 144

introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 

82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into 

interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was 

manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the 

product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This 

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

be exported. (76 FR 78846)

Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to appliances being 

exported. 

The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program varies. Some end-uses, 

such as the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and 

appliances typically field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed 

and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from products such as aerosols 

or foams because of the potential for servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some 

manufacturers of motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that there may be a 

lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA 

recognizes that the transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different global 

markets. For example, the European Union is planning to transition to low-GWP alternatives for 

MVACs in 2017 which is several years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other 

countries have not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 113 of 144

If finalized as proposed, HFC-134a would be listed as unacceptable in model year 2021 and the 

unacceptability listing would include MVACs that will be exported. 

EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. However, EPA 

understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for servicing appliances in markets outside the 

U.S. EPA believes there is ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure 

to be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this topic, including the 

applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export.

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? 

EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain end-uses because the 

three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in CAA section 605(a) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA 

section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products containing or manufactured 

with these three HCFCs. We believe it is important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these 

HCFCs may be used when another program under title VI of the CAA would prevent such use. 

Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs addressed in this rule are listed as 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire 

suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors.

This in addition to the proposed unacceptability of HCFC-containing refrigerants in MVAC 

systems (see section V.B. of this preamble). 

A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three HCFCs and 

in which end-uses?

EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 114 of 144

well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in all sectors56

except refrigeration and air conditioning. EPA is not addressing HCFC use for refrigeration and 

air conditioning because CAA section 605(a) and our implementing regulations allows for 

continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. We are proposing that the listings would be 

modified 60 days following issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal. 

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?

EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and blends containing 

these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other Title VI regulations, specifically section 605 

and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. 

1. Alignment of SNAP listings for the three HCFCs with regulations 

implementing CAA sections 605 and 610

CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce or the 

use of any class II substance as of January 1, 2015, unless such substance:

(1) has been used, recovered, and recycled; 

(2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other 

chemicals; 

(3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020; or 

(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for nonresidential 

applications in accordance with section 612(c). 

Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the prohibitions on use and 

introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC-141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b that has not 

 

56 These three HCFCs have previously been listed as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 115 of 144

been used, recovered, and recycled. See 40 CFR 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration and air 

conditioning uses, EPA’s implementing regulations prohibit the use and introduction into 

interstate commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, recovered, and recycled, in equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. EPA’s proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, 

HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b, including blends that contain these HCFCs, in various applications 

is consistent with the accelerated dates contained in our implementing regulations and covers 

end-uses where these HCFCs have previously been listed as acceptable as aerosols, refrigerants, 

foam blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and 

inks. 

Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale and distribution, as 

well as offer for sale and distribution, in interstate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized 

dispensers containing a class II substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic foam products containing or 

manufactured with a class II substance, with limited exceptions.

57 This statutory prohibition took 

effect on January 1, 1994. Consequently, most foams and aerosols have not used HCFCs since

1994.

Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and interstate commerce 

prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP 

listings for HCFCs other than HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends containing those

substances at this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later rulemaking 

as appropriate. 

2. Anticipated effects

 

57 Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and also authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific circumstances. 

For the complete list of exceptions, see EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 116 of 144

EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant effect on the use of 

HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 since existing regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless 

used, recovered, and recycled) in almost all end-uses in the United States (see 40 CFR 82.15(g)). 

For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not aware of anyone using recovered, 

recycled or reclaimed HCFC-22, HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b. In addition, as a result of the use 

restrictions in CAA section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and distribution 

restrictions on certain products containing or manufactured with these substances in CAA section 

610 and 40 CFR part 82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition to nonODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have been replaced by HCs, HFO1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and HFC-152a, excluding some niche technical applications that 

still rely on HCFCs not addressed in this action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have largely 

been replaced by, among other things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice-1233zd(E), and carbon 

dioxide; any remaining HCFC use in this sector is limited to HCFCs not addressed in this action. 

For these reasons, we believe it is technically feasible for sources to comply with the proposed 

changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 days of a final rule issued consistent with 

this proposal.

EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, -142b, -22, 

and blends containing these substances. EPA is particularly interested in comments on both the 

scope of the proposed modifications and the timing.

VIII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?

The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and imports. EPA 

understands that some manufacturers may be interested in whether the listing decisions, if 

finalized as proposed, would apply to their products. EPA has previously responded to comments 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 117 of 144

about the applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most recently, in a 

final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment concerning whether 

appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have larger charge sizes than those 

being sold in the United States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being 

established in that rule). EPA stated that:

Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person 

introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 

82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into 

interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was 

manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the 

product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This 

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

be exported. (76 FR 78846)

Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to appliances being 

exported. 

The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program varies. Some end-uses, 

such as the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and 

appliances typically field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed 

and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from products such as aerosols 

or foams because of the potential for servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 118 of 144

manufacturers of motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that there may be a 

lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA 

recognizes that the transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different global 

markets. For example, the European Union is planning to transition to low-GWP alternatives for 

MVACs in 2017 which is several years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other 

countries have not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs. 

If finalized as proposed, HFC-134a would be listed as unacceptable in model year 2021 and the 

unacceptability listing would include MVACs that will be exported. 

EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. However, EPA 

understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for servicing appliances in markets outside the 

U.S. EPA believes there is ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure 

to be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this topic.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

“significant regulatory action.” It raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 

the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 

the docket for this action.

EPA conducted an analysis58 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule 

 

58 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives, 2014.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 119 of 144

on small entities, as further discussed in the section C below. The analysis also considered that, 

specific to refrigerants used in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured light-duty 

vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a transition to alternative refrigerants 

and there are costs associated with those substitutions. Based on recent information in 

manufacturers’ product plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to 

meet the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC-134a beyond MY 2021 for a limited 

number of their models. However, we believe there is time for any such manufacturers to make 

appropriate adjustments. These manufacturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal

(representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC-134a by MY 2021), but there would 

be environmental benefits in the form of increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC 

systems which would not otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their 

plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of MVAC refrigerant.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This proposed rule is 

an Agency determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0226. This Information Collection Request (ICR) included five types of 

respondent reporting and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission of a 

SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, 

recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small 

volume uses. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 120 of 144

48 CFR Chapter 15.C.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,

small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of 

less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After conducting an analysis59 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to 

HFCs, if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers of some consumer and technical 

aerosol products, retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and 

products containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, polyurethane, and polystyrene 

foams. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HCFCs, if finalized as proposed,

would affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives, 

 

59 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives, 2014.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 121 of 144

coatings, and inks. This rule’s provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration 

and air conditioning technicians, but they would indirectly affect technicians servicing motor 

vehicle air conditioning systems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending machines 

where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner, purchases servicing 

equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are 

minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required by this rule are already 

occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social 

responsibility initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and 

because many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for these refrigeration or air 

conditioning equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered 

and serviced using equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no 

significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes proposed to be prohibited are not 

widely used (e.g., use of HFC-134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC134a as a foam blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). Most of the businesses regulated 

under this rule are not small businesses (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers).

About 500,000 small businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99% of 

small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be expected to experience zero 

compliance costs. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, in particular 

technical challenges that may exist for some small entities for particular applications but not all. 

EPA requests comments on approaches that would minimize small business burdens, including 

provisions that may provide additional compliance time for small businesses, or small 

production lines owned by small businesses. {
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 122 of 144

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, 

or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule related to prohibiting 

certain substitutes, including HFC-134a, R-404A and R-507A, would require new equipment to 

be manufactured using other available options but would not require changes to existing 

equipment that is already manufactured or purchased. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities 

that use these substances and not to governmental entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132: FederalismThis action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 

governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from State and local 

officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 123 of 144

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action 

from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does 

not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule restricts the use of certain substitutes that 

have greater overall risks for human health and the environment, primarily due to their high 

global warming potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate benefits for 

all people, including benefits for children and future generations. The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to 

the alternatives addressed in this action.

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

Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, (66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy. For the end-uses that are related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 124 of 144

conditioning, a number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that are 

proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy efficient or more 

energy efficient than the substitutes being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded 

that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law 104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 125 of 144

affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. This 

proposed rule, if finalized, would prohibit a number of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. 

The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer 

and provide climate benefits.

IX. References

This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at 

the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available 

electronically through the Federal Docket Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-

0198.

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific 

and Papers, 2013.

CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives in Commercial

Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 December 2012. This document is accessible at 

http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/FINAL%20REPORT%20Com

mercial%20Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf

Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible at:

http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-

gri-report.pdf

Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized Products 

Survey- 61st Annual Products Survey. April 15, 2012.

Daimler, “Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New Auto 

Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,” Stephen Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 126 of 144

March 11, 2014. This document is accessible at

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennot

allissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0

Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC 

Directive). This document is accessible at 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM.

Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.

EPA, 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk 

Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances.

EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. 

This document is accessible at:

www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf

EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2012. This data is 

accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf

EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013.

EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014.

EPA, Greenchill. “Advanced Refrigeration”. This document is accessible at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf

EPA Memorandum: “Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant 

Transition”, Tad Wysor, April 2014.

Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview- Honeywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA meeting. February

27, 2014.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 127 of 144

ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared 

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

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April, 2014.

ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.

IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., 

Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies 

(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 

I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and 

H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 128 of 144

York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, 

C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, 

M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate 

System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ 

Press, New York).

Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, 

ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.

Nelson, Gabe “Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European 

mandate”

Automobile News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at

http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea

NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.

Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-

chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional 

model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 129 of 144

UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 

Assessment. This document is accessible at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-

Assessment-Report.pdf.

UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP 

Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document is accessible at 

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

UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision 

XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 

2013. This document is accessible at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskFor

ce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf.

Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large 

contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 

2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” 

Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 

2011.

Weissler, Paul, “A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other 

Options,”

Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013. This document is accessible at

http://articles.sae.org/11870/
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 130 of 144

WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 

2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, 

Switzerland, 2011.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 131 of 144

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain

Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

Proposed Rule

Page 119 of 126 pages

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric 

ozone layer.

Dated: _____________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 132 of 144

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 82 - PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

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

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

Subpart G – Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

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

APPENDIX T TO SUBPART G OF PART 82- UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES AND SUBSTITUTES SUBJECT 

TO USE RESTRICTIONS LISTED IN THE [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] FINAL RULE, EFFECTIVE [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

AEROSOLS:

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Propellants HFC-125 Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2016. 

HFC-125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354-33-6 and 

it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2-

pentafluoropropane. HFC-125 has a high GWP of 

3,500. Other substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment.

Products using this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be 

sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after 

that date.

Propellants HCFC-22 and 

HCFC-142b

Unacceptable effective 

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for aerosols is 

prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These 

propellants have ozone depletion potentials of 

0.055 and 0.065, respectively. 

Solvents HCFC-141b Unacceptable effective

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-141b for aerosols is prohibited as of 

January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC-141b has an ozone 

depletion potential of 0.11. 
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 133 of 144

SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information

Propellants HFC-134a Acceptable

subject to 

use 

conditions

As of January 1, 2016, 

acceptable only for use in:

 metered dose inhalers for 

the treatment of asthma 

and chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, 

allergic rhinitis, and other 

diseases where aerosols 

can be used for systemic 

delivery through lung, 

nose, or other organs

 cleaning products for 

removal of grease, flux 

and other soils from 

electrical equipment or 

electronics

 lubricants for electrical 

equipment or electronics

 sprays for aircraft 

maintenance

 pesticides for use near 

electrical wires or in 

aircraft, in total release 

insecticide foggers, or in 

certified organic use 

pesticides for which EPA 

has specifically disallowed 

all other lower-GWP 

propellantsmold release 

agents 

 lubricants and cleaners for 

spinnerettes for synthetic 

fabrics

 duster sprays specifically 

for removal of dust from 

photographic negatives, 

semiconductor chips, and 

specimens under electron 

microscopes

 document preservation 

sprays

 wound care sprays

topical coolant sprays for 

pain alleviationproducts for 

removing bandage adhesives 

from skin

HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) 

of 811-97-2 and it is also known by the 

name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. 

Use is allowed for the specified uses 

because of the greater technical and safety 

demands in these applications compared 

to other aerosol applications.

It is prohibited to use aerosol products 

other than those specified here using 

HFC-134a that are manufactured on or 

after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products 

using this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 

may be sold, imported, exported, 

distributed and used after that date.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 134 of 144

Propellants HFC-227ea Acceptable 

subject to 

use 

conditions

As of January 1, 2016, 

acceptable only for use in 

metered dose inhalers for 

the treatment of asthma and 

chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease

HFC-227ea has a Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) 

of 431-89-0 and it is also known by the 

name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. 

HFC-227ea has a relatively high GWP of 

3,220. Use is allowed for metered dose 

inhalers because of the greater technical 

and safety demands in this application 

compared to other aerosol applications.

It is prohibited to use aerosol products 

other than metered dose inhalers using 

HFC-227ea that are manufactured on or 

after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products 

using this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 

may be sold, imported, exported, 

distributed and used after that date.

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Retail food 

refrigeration (new and 

retrofit)

R-404A Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

R-404A is a blend, by weight, of 

44% HFC-125, 4% HFC-134a, and 

52% HFC-143a. It has a high GWP 

of approximately 3,920. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Retail food 

refrigeration (new and 

retrofit)

R-507A Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

R-507A is a blend, by weight, of 

50% HFC-125 and 50% HFC-143a. 

It has a high GWP of approximately 

3,990. Other substitutes are 

available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment.

Retail food 

refrigeration 

(condensing units and 

supermarket 

systems)(new)

HFC-227ea, R-407B, R421B, R-422A, R-422C, R422D, R-428A, R-434AUnacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Retail food 

refrigeration 

(condensing units and 

supermarket 

systems)(retrofit)

R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, 

R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, 

R-434A

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 135 of 144

Retail food 

refrigeration (standalone units only) (new 

only)

HFC-134a Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also 

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

tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a 

relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Retail food 

refrigeration- (standalone units only) (new 

only)

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407A, 

R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, 

R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, 

R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, 

R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), 

RS-44 (2003 formulation), 

SP34E, THR-03. 

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from approximately 550 to 

3,607. Other substitutes are 

available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment.

Vending machines 

(new and retrofit)

R-404A Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

R-404A is a blend, by weight, of 

44% HFC-125, 4% HFC-134a, and 

52% HFC-143a. It has a GWP of 

approximately 3,920. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Vending machines 

(new and retrofit)

R-507A Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

R-507A is a blend, by weight, of 

50% HFC-125 and 50% HFC-143a. 

It has a GWP of approximately 

3,990. Other substitutes are 

available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment.

Vending machines 

(new only)

HFC-134a Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also 

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

tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a 

relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Vending machines 

(new only)

FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON 

B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407C, 

R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, 

R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, 

R-438A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), SP34E.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2016

These refrigerants have GWPs 

ranging from approximately 550 to 

3,085. Other substitutes are 

available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 136 of 144

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

HFC-134a Unacceptable as of 

Model Year (MY) 

2021

HFC-134a has a Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 811-97-2 and it is also 

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

tetrafluoropropane. HFC-134a has a 

relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

R-406A, R-414A (HCFC 

Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R414B (HCFC Blend 

Omicron), HCFC Blend 

Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 

12, GHG-X5, HCFC Blend 

Lambda (GHG-HP)

Unacceptable as of 

MY 2017

These refrigerants all contain 

HCFCs. They have GWPs ranging 

from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs 

ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

R-416A (FRIGC FR-12, 

HCFC Blend Beta)

Unacceptable as of 

MY 2017

This blend has a relatively high 

GWP of approximately 1,080 and an 

ODP of approximately 0.008. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

SP34E Unacceptable as of 

MY 2017

This blend has a relatively high 

GWP of approximately 1,410. Other 

substitutes are available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

Motor vehicle air 

conditioning (new 

equipment in 

passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only)

R-426A (RS-24, new 

formulation)

Unacceptable as of 

MY 2017

This blend has a relatively high 

GWP of approximately 1,510. Other 

substitutes are available for this enuse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment.

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed Use Limits Further Information
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 137 of 144

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Appliance

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Spray

HFC-134a and 

Formacel TI

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 138 of 144

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Commercial 

Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

Flexible 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 139 of 144

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and Other

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

.

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

Rigid Polyurethane 

and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof 

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 140 of 144

Polystyrene: 

Extruded Sheet

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded 

Boardstock and 

Billet

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel B, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 141 of 144

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

.

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

Polyolefin HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 142 of 144

Phenolic Insulation 

Board and 

Bunstock

HFC-143a, 

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof

Acceptable Subject 

to Narrowed Use 

Limits 

Acceptable until 

January 1, 2022 only 

in military or spaceand aeronauticsrelated applications 

where reasonable 

efforts have been 

made to ascertain that 

other alternatives are 

not technically 

feasible due to 

performance or safety 

requirements. 

Users are required to 

document and retain the 

results of their technical 

investigation of alternatives 

for the purpose of 

demonstrating compliance. 

Information should include 

descriptions of: 

 Process or product in 

which the substitute 

is needed; 

 Substitutes examined 

and rejected; 

 Reason for rejection 

of other alternatives, 

e.g., performance, 

technical or safety 

standards; and/or 

 Anticipated date other 

substitutes will be 

available and 

projected time for 

switching.

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

All Blends of 

HCFC-141b 

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 

under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found 

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

HCFC-141b has an ODP of 0.11. 

Polyolefin HCFC-22, 

HCFC-142b, and

blends thereof

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b for foam blowing

is prohibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, 

recovered, and recycled. These compounds have 

ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065 

respectively under the Montreal Protocol. 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Appliance

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit. 

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 143 of 144

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Spray

HFC-134a and 

Formacel TI

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Commercial 

Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.

Flexible 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and Other

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.

Rigid Polyurethane 

and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc 

and blends 

thereof

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP.

Polystyrene: 

Extruded Sheet

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP. 

Polystyrene: 

Extruded 

Boardstock and

Billet

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof, 

Formacel B, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including lower GWP. 

Integral Skin 

Polyurethane

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment Other substitutes are available for this 

end-use with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment, including lower GWP.
Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and	

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 144 of 144

Polyolefin HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment Other substitutes are available for this 

end-use with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment, including lower GWP.

Phenolic Insulation 

Board and

Bunstock

HFC-143a, 

HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, 

and blends 

thereof

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017

except where 

allowed under a 

narrowed use limit. 

Other substitutes are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment, including GWP.

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Total Flooding HCFC-22 Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 for total flooding fire suppression 

and explosion protection is prohibited as of January 

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

subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 

STERILANTS

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Sterilants Blends containing 

HCFC-22

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-22 for sterilants is prohibited as of 

January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart A. HCFC-22 has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 

ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Adhesives, coatings 

and inks

HCFC-141b and 

blends thereof

Unacceptable 

effective [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER 

PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL 

RULE]

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of 

virgin HCFC-141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is 

prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This 

chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11.