Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 138 July 20, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 82 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Final 

Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9926–55– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS18 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action changes the status 

from acceptable to unacceptable; 

acceptable, subject to use conditions; or 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits for a number of substitutes, 

pursuant to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Significant New 

Alternatives Policy program. We make 

these changes based on information 

showing that other substitutes are 

available for the same uses that pose 

lower risk overall to human health and 

the environment. Specifically, this 

action changes the listing status for 

certain hydrofluorocarbons in various 

end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration 

and air conditioning, and foam blowing 

sectors. This action also changes the 

status from acceptable to unacceptable 

for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

being phased out of production under 

the Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer and 

section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed in 

the electronic docket and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically or in hard copy at the Air 

and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9163; fax number 

(202) 343–2338, email address: 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What acronyms and abbreviations are 

used in the preamble? 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements and 

authority for the SNAP program? 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing CAA section 612? 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

D. What are the guiding principles of the 

SNAP program? 

E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating 

substitutes under the SNAP program? 

F. How are SNAP determinations updated? 

G. What does EPA consider in deciding 

whether to modify the listing status of an 

alternative? 

H. Where can I get additional information 

about the SNAP program? 

III. What actions and information related to 

greenhouse gases have bearing on this 

final action to modify prior SNAP 

determinations? 

IV. What petitions has EPA received 

requesting a change in listing status for 

HFCs? 

A. Summary of Petitions 

B. How This Action Relates to the Climate 

Action Plan and Petitions 

V. What is EPA’s final action concerning the 

HFCs addressed in this rule? 

A. Aerosols 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA finalizing concerning 

aerosols? 

(a) What other alternatives are available? 

(1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor 

Pressure Constraints 

(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses 

(b) When will the listings change? 

3. How is EPA responding to comments 

about this end-use? 

(a) Timeline 

(b) Sell-Through period 

(c) Use conditions 

(d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact 

of Aerosols 

(e) Small Business Impacts 

(f) Imports 

B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured 

Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC 

systems for newly manufactured lightduty motor vehicles? 

(a) HFC–134a 

(b) Refrigerant Blends 

3. MVAC Servicing 

4. Would this action affect EPA’s LD GHG 

Rule? 

5. How will the change of status apply to 

exports of MVAC systems? 

(a) SNAP Interpretation 

(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC 

6. How is EPA responding to comments 

concerning this end-use? 

(a) Timeline 

(b) Interaction With EPA’s LD GHG Rule 

(c) Environmental Impacts 

(d) Cost Impacts of Rule 

(e) Servicing and Retrofits 

(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of 

MVAC Systems 

(g) Use Conditions for HFC–134a 

(h) Flexibility for Exports 

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending 

Machines 

1. Background 

(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use 

Categories, and Commonly-Used 

Refrigerants 

(b) Terms and Coverage 

(c) The Terms ‘‘New’’ and ‘‘Retrofit’’ and 

How They Apply to Servicing 

2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (supermarket systems)? 

(a) New Supermarket Systems 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments on 

retail food refrigeration (supermarket 

systems)? 

3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (remote condensing units)? 

(a) New Remote Condensing Units 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments on 

retail food refrigeration (remote 

condensing units)? 

4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)? 

(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42871 

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

used interchangeably. 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments on 

retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

equipment)? 

5. What is EPA finalizing for vending 

machines? 

(a) New Vending Machines 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(b) Retrofit Vending Machines 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(2) When will the status change? 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments on 

vending machines? 

6. General Comments on the Retail Food 

Refrigeration and Vending Machine EndUses 

(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP 

(b) Comments and Responses Concerning 

Small Businesses 

(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and 

Training 

7. Energy Efficiency Considerations 

D. Foam Blowing Agents 

1. Background 

2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing 

agents? 

(a) What other alternatives does EPA find 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment? 

(b) When will the status change? 

(c) Military and Space- and AeronauticsRelated Applications 

(d) How will the requirements apply to 

exports and imports? 

3. How is EPA responding to comments 

concerning foam blowing end-uses? 

(a) Timeline 

(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing Status 

and Other Alternatives 

(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts of 

Foam Blowing Agents 

(d) Cost Impacts 

VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs 

addressed in this rule? 

A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and 

what is being finalized in this rule? 

B. How is EPA responding to public 

comments concerning HCFCs? 

VII. How is EPA responding to other public 

comments? 

A. Authority 

1. General Authority 

2. Second Generation Substitutes 

3. GWP Considerations 

4. Takings 

5. Montreal Protocol/International 

6. Absence of Petitions 

7. Application of Criteria for Review of 

Alternatives 

B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed 

Status Changes 

1. Costs of Proposed Rule 

2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small Business 

Impacts Screening Analysis 

C. Environmental Effects of Proposed 

Status Changes 

1. General Comments 

2. EPA’s Benefits Analysis 

3. Energy Efficiency 

4. The Climate Action Plan 

D. Potential Exemptions 

E. Interactions With Other Rules 

F. Other Comments 

VIII. Additional Analyses 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

X. References 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

Under section 612 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), EPA reviews substitutes 

within a comparative risk framework. 

More specifically, section 612 provides 

that EPA must prohibit the use of a 

substitute where EPA has determined 

that there are other available substitutes 

that pose less overall risk to human 

health and the environment. Thus, 

EPA’s Significant New Alternatives 

Policy (SNAP) program, which 

implements section 612, does not 

provide a static list of alternatives but 

instead evolves the list as the EPA 

makes decisions informed by our overall 

understanding of the environmental and 

human health impacts as well as our 

current knowledge about available 

substitutes. In the more than twenty 

years since the initial SNAP rule was 

promulgated, EPA has modified the 

SNAP lists many times, most often by 

expanding the list of acceptable 

substitutes, but in some cases by 

prohibiting the use of substitutes 

previously listed as acceptable. Where 

EPA is determining whether to add a 

new substitute to the list, EPA compares 

the risk posed by that new substitute to 

the risks posed by other alternatives on 

the list and determines whether that 

specific new substitute poses more risk 

than already-listed alternatives for the 

same use. As the lists have expanded, 

EPA has not reviewed the lists in a 

broader manner to determine whether 

substitutes added to the lists early in the 

program pose more risk than substitutes 

that have more recently been added. 

EPA is now beginning this process. 

Global warming potential (GWP) is 

one of several criteria EPA considers in 

the overall evaluation of the alternatives 

under the SNAP program. The 

President’s June 2013 Climate Action 

Plan (CAP) states that, ‘‘to reduce 

emissions of HFCs, the United States 

can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions.’’ Furthermore, the 

CAP states that EPA will ‘‘use its 

authority through the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program to 

encourage private sector investment in 

low-emissions technology by identifying 

and approving climate-friendly 

chemicals while prohibiting certain uses 

of the most harmful chemical 

alternatives.’’ In our first effort to take 

a broader look at the SNAP lists, we 

have focused on those listed substitutes 

that have a high GWP relative to other 

alternatives in specific end-uses. In 

determining whether to change the 

status of these substitutes for particular 

end-uses, we performed a full 

comparative risk analysis, based on our 

criteria for review, with other available 

alternatives also listed as acceptable for 

these end-uses. 

In an August 6, 2014, Federal Register 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 

46126), the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (hereafter referred to 

as EPA or the Agency) proposed to 

change the status of certain substitutes 1

that at that time were listed as 

acceptable under the SNAP program. 

After reviewing public comments and 

available information, in today’s action, 

EPA is modifying the listings from 

acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable, 

subject to use conditions; or acceptable, 

subject to narrowed use limits for 

certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and 

HFC blends in various end-uses in the 

aerosols, foam blowing, and 

refrigeration and air conditioning 

sectors where other alternatives are 

available or potentially available that 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment. Per the guiding 

principles of the SNAP program, this 

action does not specify that any HFCs 

are unacceptable across all sectors and 

end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA 

considered the intersection between the 

specific HFC or HFC blend and the 

particular end-use and the availability 

of substitutes for those particular enduses. EPA is also not specifying that, for 

any sector, the only acceptable 

substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes 

that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes 

may pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment, depending 

on the particular use. Instead, consistent 

with CAA section 612 as we have 

historically interpreted it under the 

SNAP program, EPA is making these 

modifications based on our evaluation 

of the substitutes addressed in this 

action using the SNAP criteria for 

evaluation and considering the current 

suite of other available and potentially 

available substitutes. 

On that basis, EPA is modifying the 

following listings by sector and end-use 

as of the dates indicated. EPA will 

continue to monitor the development 

and deployment of other alternatives as 

well as their uptake by industries 

affected by today’s action. If EPA 

receives new information indicating that 

other alternatives will not be available 

by the change of status dates specified, 

EPA may propose further action to 

adjust the relevant dates. 

(1) Aerosols 

• EPA is listing HFC–125 as 

unacceptable for use as an aerosol 

propellant as of January 1, 2016. 

• EPA is listing HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, and blends of HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea as unacceptable for use as 

aerosol propellants as of July 20, 2016, 

except for those uses specifically listed 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

• EPA is listing HFC–227ea and 

blends of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 

of July 20, 2016, for use in metered dose 

inhalers (MDIs) approved by the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

• EPA is listing HFC–134a as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 

of July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018, 

for the following specific uses: 

Æ products for which new 

formulations require federal 

governmental review, including: EPA 

pesticide registration, military or space 

agency specifications, or FDA approval 

(aside from MDIs); and 

Æ products for smoke detector 

functionality testing. 

• EPA is listing HFC–134a as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 

of July 20, 2016, for the following 

specific uses: 

Æ cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from 

electrical equipment or electronics; 

Æ refrigerant flushes; 

Æ products for sensitivity testing of 

smoke detectors; 

Æ sprays containing corrosion 

preventive compounds used in the 

maintenance of aircraft, electrical 

equipment or electronics, or military 

equipment; 

Æ duster sprays specifically for 

removal of dust from photographic 

negatives, semiconductor chips, and 

specimens under electron microscopes 

or for use on energized electrical 

equipment; 

Æ adhesives and sealants in large 

canisters; 

Æ lubricants and freeze sprays for 

electrical equipment or electronics; 

Æ sprays for aircraft maintenance; 

Æ pesticides for use near electrical 

wires or in aircraft, in total release 

insecticide foggers, or in certified 

organic use pesticides for which EPA 

has specifically disallowed all other 

lower-GWP propellants; 

Æ mold release agents and mold 

cleaners; 

Æ lubricants and cleaners for 

spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; 

Æ document preservation sprays; 

Æ MDIs approved by the FDA for 

medical purposes; 

Æ wound care sprays; 

Æ topical coolant sprays for pain 

relief; and 

Æ products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. 

(2) Refrigeration and air conditioning 

sector; Motor vehicle air conditioning 

(MVAC) systems for newly 

manufactured light-duty vehicles 

EPA is listing HFC–134a as 

unacceptable for newly manufactured 

light-duty motor vehicles beginning in 

Model Year (MY) 2021 except as 

allowed under a narrowed use limit for 

use in newly manufactured light-duty 

vehicles destined for use in countries 

that do not have infrastructure in place 

for servicing with other acceptable 

refrigerants. This narrowed use limit 

will be in place through MY 2025. 

Beginning in MY 2026, HFC–134a will 

be unacceptable for use in all newly 

manufactured light-duty vehicles. EPA 

is also listing the use of certain 

refrigerant blends as unacceptable in 

newly manufactured light-duty motor 

vehicles starting with MY 2017. 

(3) Refrigeration and air conditioning 

sector; Retail food refrigeration and 

vending machines 

EPA is listing a number of refrigerants 

as unacceptable in a number of retail 

food refrigeration categories and in the 

vending machines end-use, as follows: 

• Retrofitted supermarket systems: R– 

404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and 

R–507A as of July 20, 2016 

• New supermarket systems: HFC– 

227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, and R–507A as of January 1, 2017 

• Retrofitted remote condensing 

units: R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, and R–507A as of July 20, 2016 

• New remote condensing units: 

HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, 

R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, and R–507A as of January 1, 2018 

• Retrofitted vending machines: R– 

404A and R–507A as of July 20, 2016 

• New vending machines: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC–134a, KDD6, R–125/290/ 

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

R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), and SP34E as of 

January 1, 2019 

• Retrofitted stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment: R–404A and R– 

507A as of July 20, 2016 

• New stand-alone mediumtemperature units with a compressor 

capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not 

containing a flooded evaporator: 

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, 

R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), 

SP34E, and THR–03 as of January 1, 

2019 

• New stand-alone mediumtemperature units with a compressor 

capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 

Btu/hr and stand-alone mediumtemperature units containing a flooded 

evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 

134a, HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/

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

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, and THR–03 as of 

January 1, 2020 

• New stand-alone low-temperature 

units: HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/

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

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, and RS–44 

(2003 formulation) as of January 1, 2020 

We are also providing clarification on 

several questions identified during the 

comment period. Specifically, we are 

providing clarification of the terms we 

are using for the various end-use 

categories covered by this rule, 

including ‘‘supermarket systems,’’ 

‘‘remote condensing units,’’ and ‘‘standalone equipment.’’ We are also 

providing clarification on certain types 

of equipment that do not fall within the 

categories and end-uses covered by this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42873 

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

Aerosols Industry. May 2014. 

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

Foams Industry. May 2014. 

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

Commercial Refrigeration Industry. May 2014. 

5 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. May 

2014. 

6 ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis 

for Regulatory Options To Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014. 

7EPA, 2014a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule. June 2014. 

8 ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis 

for Regulatory Options To Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives. June 2014. 

9 ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. 

Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. 

Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July 2015 

10 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives—Revised. July 

2015. 

11EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule. July 2015. 

12 ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. July 2015. 

rule, including blast chillers, certain ice 

makers, very-low temperature 

refrigeration equipment, and equipment 

that dispenses chilled beverage or food 

(e.g., soft-serve ice cream) via a nozzle. 

Finally, we are also providing 

clarification regarding our use of the 

terms ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘retrofit’’ and how 

those terms relate to service of existing 

equipment. 

(4) Foams 

EPA is listing a number of foam 

blowing agents unacceptable in each 

foams end-use excluding rigid PU spray 

foam, except as allowed under a 

narrowed use limit for military or spaceand aeronautics-related applications. 

For military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications, we are changing 

the listing status to acceptable, subject 

to a narrowed use limit, as of the status 

change date for the remainder of each 

end-use (January 1 of 2017, 2019, 2020 

or 2021) and then to unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2022. We are not taking final 

action on rigid PU spray foam at this 

time. The unacceptable listing for all 

other end-uses is as follows: 

• Rigid polyurethane (PU) appliance 

foam: HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2020 

• Rigid PU commercial refrigeration 

and sandwich panels: HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of 

January 1, 2020 

• Rigid PU slabstock and other: HFC– 

134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and 

blends thereof; Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2019 

• Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock: HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends thereof; 

as of January 1, 2017 

• Flexible PU: HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

as of January 1, 2017 

• Integral skin PU: HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of 

January 1, 2017 

• Polystyrene extruded sheet: HFC– 

134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2017 

• Polystyrene extruded boardstock 

and billet (XPS): HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel 

Z–6, as of January 1, 2021 

• Polyolefin: HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6, as of 

January 1, 2020 

• Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock: HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends thereof; 

as of January 1, 2017 

• Rigid PU marine flotation foam: 

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc 

and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z–6, as of January 1, 2020 

While EPA proposed and requested 

comments on interpreting the SNAP 

unacceptability determinations to apply 

to the import of foam products that 

retain the blowing agents (i.e., closed 

cell foams), EPA is not finalizing that 

change in this rulemaking. 

(5) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFCs) 

As proposed, EPA is also modifying 

the listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC– 

142b, and HCFC–22, as well as blends 

that contain these substances in 

aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire 

suppression and explosion protection 

agents, sterilants, and adhesives, 

coatings and inks. These modifications 

align the SNAP listings with other parts 

of the stratospheric protection program, 

specifically section 605 and the 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

82 subpart A and section 610 and the 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

82 subpart C. The modified listings will 

apply 60 days following publication of 

this final rule. 

(6) Overview of public comments 

EPA received over 7,500 comments on 

the proposed rule. EPA requested and 

received comments on the proposed 

listing decisions as well as the proposed 

change of status dates. As noted in 

response to comments throughout this 

document, the decision on modifying 

each listing is based on the SNAP 

program’s comparative risk framework. 

This includes information concerning 

whether there are alternatives available 

with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment for the end-uses 

considered. As part of our consideration 

of the availability of those alternatives, 

we considered all available information, 

including information provided during 

the public comment period, and 

information claimed as confidential and 

provided during meetings, regarding 

technical challenges that may affect the 

time at which the alternatives can be 

used safely and used consistent with 

other requirements such as testing and 

code compliance obligations. We 

grouped comments together and 

responded to the issues raised by the 

comments in the sections that follow, or 

in a separate response to comments 

document which is included in the 

docket for this rule (EPA, 2015a). This 

final rule reflects some changes to our 

proposal, based on information and data 

received during the public comment 

period. 

The sections that follow describe 

EPA’s final action for each of the three 

sectors covered in this rulemaking— 

aerosols; foam blowing; and 

refrigeration and air-conditioning, 

including commercial refrigeration and 

motor vehicle air conditioning. For the 

end-uses addressed within each sector 

we explain the change of status 

determination and the dates when the 

change of status will apply. EPA has 

updated documentation for this rule 

including market characterizations, 

analyses of costs associated with sector 

transitions, estimated benefits 

associated with the transition to other 

alternatives, and potential small 

business impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 These 

documents are available in the docket. 

EPA provided separate market 

characterizations by sector for the 

proposed rule but is providing a single 

document consolidating this 

information, and updated to reflect 

information received during the public 

comment period, for this final action. 

The emissions avoided from this final 

rule are estimated to be 26 to 31 million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(MMTCO2eq) in 2020. The avoided 

emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64 

MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 

MMTCO2eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b). 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Potential entities that may be affected 

by this final rule include: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing. 

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

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

Industry ..................................................... 336611 Ship Building and Repairing. 

Industry ..................................................... 336612 Boat Building. 

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

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

Wholesalers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding 

entities likely to use the substitute 

whose use is regulated by this action. If 

you have any questions about whether 

this action applies to a particular entity, 

consult the person listed in the above 

section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

C. What acronyms and abbreviations are 

used in the preamble? 

Below is a list of acronyms and 

abbreviations used in the preamble of 

this document: 

AAM—Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers 

ACGIH—American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

AGC—Asahi Glass Company 

AHAM—Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

AHRI— Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute 

AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene 

Association 

The Alliance—Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy 

ARPI—Automotive Refrigeration Products 

Institute 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAP—Climate Action Plan 

CARB—California Air Resource Board 

CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Identification Number 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFESA—Commercial Food Equipment 

Service Association 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4—Methane 

CO2—Carbon Dioxide 

CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent 

CRA—Congressional Review Act 

CSPA—Consumer Specialty Products 

Association 

DME—Dimethyl ether 

DoD—United States Department of Defense 

DOE—United States Department of Energy 

DX—Direct expansion 

EIA—Environmental Investigation AgencyUS 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FDA—United States Food and Drug 

Administration 

FM—Factory Mutual 

FMI—Food Marketing Institute 

FR—Federal Register 

GHG—Greenhouse Gas 

Global Automakers—Association of Global 

Automakers 

GWP—Global Warming Potential 

HC—Hydrocarbon 

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

ICF—ICF International, Inc. 

IGSD—Institute for Governance and 

Sustainable Development 

IPAC—International Pharmaceutical Aerosol 

Consortium 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

LCCP— Life Cycle Climate Performance 

LD GHG—Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42875 

13As 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 

Continued 

MAC Directive—Directive on Mobile Air 

Conditioning 

MDI—Metered Dose Inhaler 

Mexichem—Mexichem Fluor, Inc. 

MMTCO2eq—Million Metric Tons of Carbon 

Dioxide equivalent 

MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning 

MY—Model Year 

N2—Nitrogen 

N2O—Nitrous Oxide 

NAA—National Aerosol Association 

NADA—National Automobile Dealers 

Association 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NAFEM—North American Association of 

Food Equipment Manufacturers 

NAM—National Association of 

Manufacturers 

NAMA—National Automatic Merchandising 

Association 

NASA—National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association 

NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

NIOSH—United States National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

NMMA—National Marine Manufacturers 

Association 

NPRM—Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NRA—National Restaurant Association 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NSF—National Sanitation Foundation 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OEM—Original Equipment Manufacturer 

ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential 

ODS—Ozone-depleting Substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management 

and Budget 

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

PEL—Permissible Exposure Limit 

PFC—Perfluorocarbons 

PU—Polyurethane 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

REACH—Registration, Evaluation, 

Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals 

RfC—Reference Concentration 

RRR—Recovery, Recycling and Recharging 

RSC—Radiator Specialty Company 

RSES—Refrigeration Service Engineers 

Society 

SIP—State Implementation Plan 

SAE ICCC—SAE International’s Interior 

Climate Control Committee 

SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SISNOSE—Significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

SRES—Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios 

TEAP—Technical and Economic Assessment 

Panel 

TEWI—Total Equivalent Warming Impact 

TLV—Threshold Limit Value 

TXV—Thermostatic Expansion Valve 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UNEP—United Nations Environmental 

Programme 

VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds 

WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure 

Limit 

XPS—Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and 

Billet 

XPSA—Extruded Polystyrene Association 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

and authority for the SNAP program? 

CAA section 612 requires EPA to 

develop a program for evaluating 

alternatives to ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS). This program is 

known as the SNAP program. The major 

provisions of section 612 are: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, 

halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl 

chloroform, methyl bromide, 

hydrobromofluorocarbon, and 

chlorobromomethane) or class II (HCFC) 

substance with any substitute that the 

Administrator determines may present 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment where the Administrator 

has identified an alternative that (1) 

reduces the overall risk to human health 

and the environment and (2) is currently 

or potentially available. 

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes that it 

finds to be unacceptable for specific 

uses and to publish a corresponding list 

of acceptable substitutes for specific 

uses. The list of ‘‘acceptable’’ substitutes 

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

lists and the lists of ‘‘unacceptable,’’ 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ 

and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ substitutes are found in the 

appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 

3. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance from, 

the lists published in accordance with 

section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days 

to grant or deny a petition. Where the 

Agency grants the petition, EPA must 

publish the revised lists within an 

additional six months. 

4. 90-Day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require 

any person who produces a chemical 

substitute for a class I substance to 

notify the Agency not less than 90 days 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

5. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall seek to maximize 

the use of federal research facilities and 

resources to assist users of class I and 

II substances in identifying and 

developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

6. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to set up a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

implementing CAA section 612? 

On March 18, 1994, EPA published 

the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) 

which established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR 

part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the 

following: Refrigeration and air 

conditioning; foam blowing; solvents 

cleaning; fire suppression and explosion 

protection; sterilants; aerosols; 

adhesives, coatings and inks; and 

tobacco expansion. These sectors 

comprise the principal industrial sectors 

that historically consumed the largest 

volumes of ODS. 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who produces a substitute to replace a 

class I or II ODS in one of the eight 

major industrial use sectors must 

provide the Agency with notice and the 

required health and safety information 

on the substitute at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative. 

40 CFR 82.176(a). While this 

requirement typically applies to 

chemical manufacturers as the person 

likely to be planning to introduce the 

substitute into interstate commerce,13 it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

14As 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. 

15The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ 

referring to submissions for which EPA has not 

reached a determination, under this provision. 

16As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘use’’ means any 

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

use in a manufacturing process or product, in 

consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate 

uses, such as formulation or packaging for other 

subsequent uses. This definition of use 

encompasses manufacturing process of products 

both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes 

manufactured within the United States exclusively 

for export are subject to SNAP requirements since 

the definition of use in the rule includes use in the 

manufacturing process, which occurs within the 

United States. 

17 In addition to acceptable commercially 

available substitutes, the SNAP program may 

consider potentially available substitutes. The 

SNAP program’s definition of ‘‘potentially available 

’’ is ‘‘any alternative for which adequate health, 

safety, and environmental data, as required for the 

SNAP notification process, exist to make a 

determination of acceptability, and which the 

Agency reasonably believes to be technically 

feasible, even if not all testing has yet been 

completed and the alternative is not yet produced 

or sold.’’ (40 CFR 82.172) 

may also apply to importers, 

formulators, equipment manufacturers, 

or end users 14 when they are 

responsible for introducing a substitute 

into commerce. The 90-day SNAP 

review process begins once EPA 

receives the submission and determines 

that the submission includes complete 

and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). 

The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 

CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a 

substitute earlier than 90 days after a 

complete submission has been provided 

to the Agency. 

The Agency has identified four 

possible decision categories for 

substitute submissions: Acceptable; 

acceptable, subject to use conditions; 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits; and unacceptable.15 40 CFR 

82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed 

use limits are both considered ‘‘use 

restrictions’’ and are explained below. 

Substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

without use conditions can be used for 

all applications within the relevant enduses within the sector and without 

limits under SNAP on how they may be 

used. Substitutes that are acceptable 

subject to use restrictions may be used 

only in accordance with those 

restrictions. Substitutes that are found 

to be unacceptable may not be used after 

the date specified in the rulemaking 

adding such substitute to the list of 

unacceptable substitutes.16

After reviewing a substitute, the 

Agency may determine that a substitute 

is acceptable only if certain conditions 

in the way that the substitute is used are 

met to ensure risks to human health and 

the environment are not significantly 

greater than other available substitutes. 

EPA describes such substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ 

Entities that use these substitutes 

without meeting the associated use 

conditions are in violation of section 

612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP 

regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrow range of use within an 

end-use or sector. For example, the 

Agency may limit the use of a substitute 

to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. 

The Agency requires a user of a 

narrowed use substitute to demonstrate 

that no other acceptable substitutes are 

available for their specific application. 

EPA describes these substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ A person using a substitute that 

is acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits in applications and end-uses that 

are not consistent with the narrowed 

use limit is using these substitutes in 

violation of section 612 of the CAA and 

EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 

82.174(c). 

The section 612 mandate for EPA to 

prohibit the use of a substitute that may 

present risk to human health or the 

environment where a lower risk 

alternative is available or potentially 

available 17 provides EPA with the 

authority to change the listing status of 

a particular substitute if such a change 

is justified by new information or 

changed circumstance. The Agency 

publishes its SNAP program decisions 

in the Federal Register. EPA uses 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

place any alternative on the list of 

prohibited substitutes, to list a 

substitute as acceptable only subject to 

use conditions or narrowed use limits, 

or to remove a substitute from either the 

list of prohibited or acceptable 

substitutes. 

In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of 

acceptability’’ to notify the public of 

substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

with no restrictions. As described in the 

preamble to the rule initially 

implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 

13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not 

believe that rulemaking procedures are 

necessary to list substitutes that are 

acceptable without restrictions because 

such listings neither impose any 

sanction nor prevent anyone from using 

a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

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

provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed are binding under 

other regulatory programs (e.g., worker 

protection regulations promulgated by 

the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘further 

information’’ classification does not 

necessarily include all other legal 

obligations pertaining to the use of the 

substitute. While the items listed are not 

legally binding under the SNAP 

program, EPA encourages users of 

substitutes to apply all statements in the 

‘‘further information’’ column in their 

use of these substitutes. In many 

instances, the information simply refers 

to sound operating practices that have 

already been identified in existing 

industry and/or building codes or 

standards. Thus, many of the 

statements, if adopted, would not 

require the affected user to make 

significant changes in existing operating 

practices. 

D. What are the guiding principles of the 

SNAP program? 

The seven guiding principles of the 

SNAP program, elaborated in the 

preamble to the initial SNAP rule and 

consistent with section 612, are 

discussed below. 

• Evaluate substitutes within a 

comparative risk framework 

The SNAP program evaluates the risk 

of alternative compounds compared to 

available or potentially available 

substitutes to the ozone depleting 

compounds which they are intended to 

replace. The risk factors that are 

considered include ozone depletion 

potential as well as flammability, 

toxicity, occupational health and safety, 

and contributions to climate change and 

other environmental factors. 

• Do not require that substitutes be 

risk free to be found acceptable 

Substitutes found to be acceptable 

must not pose significantly greater risk 

than other substitutes, but they do not 

have to be risk free. A key goal of the 

SNAP program is to promote the use of 

substitutes that minimize risks to 

human health and the environment 

relative to other alternatives. In some 

cases, this approach may involve 

designating a substitute acceptable even 

though the compound may pose a risk 

of some type, provided its use does not 

pose significantly greater risk than other 

alternatives. 

• Restrict those substitutes that are 

significantly worse 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42877 

EPA does not intend to restrict a 

substitute if it has only marginally 

greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions 

would be extremely difficult. The 

Agency also does not want to intercede 

in the market’s choice of substitutes by 

listing as unacceptable all but a few 

substitutes for each end-use, and does 

not intend to do so unless a substitute 

has been proposed or is being used that 

is clearly more harmful to human health 

or the environment than other available 

or potentially available alternatives. 

• Evaluate risks by use 

Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the 

intersection between the characteristics 

of the substitute itself and its specific 

end-use application. Section 612 

requires that substitutes be evaluated by 

use. Environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly 

depending on the particular application 

of a substitute. Thus, the risk 

characterizations must be designed to 

represent differences in the 

environmental and human health effects 

associated with diverse uses. This 

approach cannot, however, imply 

fundamental tradeoffs with respect to 

different types of risk to either the 

environment or to human health. 

• Provide the regulated community 

with information as soon as possible 

The Agency recognizes the need to 

provide the regulated community with 

information on the acceptability of 

various substitutes as soon as possible. 

To do so, EPA issues notices or 

determinations of acceptability and 

rules identifying substitutes as 

unacceptable, acceptable to use 

conditions or acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits in the Federal 

Register. In addition, we maintain lists 

of acceptable and unacceptable 

alternatives on our Web site, 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. 

• Do not endorse products 

manufactured by specific companies 

The Agency does not issue companyspecific product endorsements. In many 

cases, the Agency may base its analysis 

on data received on individual 

products, but the addition of a 

substitute to the acceptable list based on 

that analysis does not represent an 

endorsement of that company’s 

products. 

• Defer to other environmental 

regulations when warranted 

In some cases, EPA and other federal 

agencies have developed extensive 

regulations under other sections of the 

CAA or other statutes that address 

potential environmental or human 

health effects that may result from the 

use of alternatives to class I and class II 

substances. For example, use of some 

substitutes may in some cases entail 

increased use of chemicals that 

contribute to tropospheric air pollution. 

The SNAP program takes existing 

regulations under other programs into 

account when reviewing substitutes. 

E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating 

substitutes under the SNAP program? 

EPA applies the same criteria for 

determining whether a substitute is 

acceptable or unacceptable. These 

criteria, which can be found at 

§ 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric 

effects and related health and 

environmental effects, ecosystem risks, 

consumer risks, flammability, and cost 

and availability of the substitute. To 

enable EPA to assess these criteria, we 

require submitters to include various 

information including ozone depletion 

potential (ODP), GWP, toxicity, 

flammability, and the potential for 

human exposure. 

When evaluating potential substitutes, 

EPA evaluates these criteria in the 

following groupings: 

• Atmospheric effects—The SNAP 

program evaluates the potential 

contributions to both ozone depletion 

and climate change. The SNAP program 

considers the ozone depletion potential 

and the 100-year integrated GWP of 

compounds to assess atmospheric 

effects. 

• Exposure assessments—The SNAP 

program uses exposure assessments to 

estimate concentration levels of 

substitutes to which workers, 

consumers, the general population, and 

the environment may be exposed over a 

determined period of time. These 

assessments are based on personal 

monitoring data or area sampling data if 

available. Exposure assessments may be 

conducted for many types of releases 

including: 

(1) Releases in the workplace and in 

homes; 

(2) Releases to ambient air and surface 

water; 

(3) Releases from the management of 

solid wastes. 

• Toxicity data—The SNAP program 

uses toxicity data to assess the possible 

health and environmental effects of 

exposure to substitutes. We use broad 

health-based criteria such as: 

(1) Permissible Exposure Limits 

(PELs) for occupational exposure; 

(2) Inhalation reference 

concentrations (RfCs) for noncarcinogenic effects on the general 

population; 

(3) Cancer slope factors for 

carcinogenic risk to members of the 

general population. 

When considering risks in the 

workplace, if OSHA has not issued a 

PEL for a compound, EPA then 

considers Recommended Exposure 

Limits from the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Workplace Environmental 

Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association (AIHA), or threshold limit 

values (TLVs) set by the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for 

occupational exposure or exposure to 

the general population are not already 

established, then EPA derives these 

values following the Agency’s peer 

reviewed guidelines. Exposure 

information is combined with toxicity 

information to explore any basis for 

concern. Toxicity data are used with 

existing EPA guidelines to develop 

health-based limits for interim use in 

these risk characterizations. 

• Flammability—The SNAP program 

examines flammability as a safety 

concern for workers and consumers. 

EPA assesses flammability risk using 

data on: 

(1) Flash point and flammability 

limits (e.g. American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) flammability/

combustibility classifications); 

(2) Data on testing of blends with 

flammable components; 

(3) Test data on flammability in 

consumer applications conducted by 

independent laboratories; and 

(4) Information on flammability risk 

mitigation techniques. 

• Other environmental impacts—The 

SNAP program also examines other 

potential environmental impacts like 

ecotoxicity and local air quality 

impacts. A compound that is likely to be 

discharged to water may be evaluated 

for impacts on aquatic life. Some 

substitutes are volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). EPA also notes 

whenever a potential substitute is 

considered a hazardous or toxic air 

pollutant (under CAA sections 112(b) 

and 202(l)) or hazardous waste under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C 

regulations. 

Over the past twenty years, the menu 

of substitutes has become much broader 

and a great deal of new information has 

been developed on many substitutes. 

Because the overall goal of the SNAP 

program is to ensure that substitutes 

listed as acceptable do not pose 

significantly greater risk to human 

health and the environment than other 

available substitutes, the SNAP criteria 

should be informed by our current 

overall understanding of environmental 

and human health impacts and our 

experience with and current knowledge 

about available and potentially available 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

substitutes. Over time, the range of 

substitutes reviewed by SNAP has 

changed, and, at the same time, 

scientific approaches have evolved to 

more accurately assess the potential 

environmental and human health 

impacts of these chemicals and 

alternative technologies. 

F. How are SNAP determinations 

updated? 

Three mechanisms exist for modifying 

the list of SNAP determinations. First, 

under section 612(d), the Agency must 

review and either grant or deny 

petitions to add or delete substances 

from the SNAP list of acceptable or 

unacceptable substitutes. That provision 

allows any person to petition the 

Administrator to add a substance to the 

list of acceptable or unacceptable 

substitutes or to remove a substance 

from either list. The second means is 

through the notifications which must be 

submitted to EPA 90 days before 

introduction of a substitute into 

interstate commerce for significant new 

use as an alternative to a class I or class 

II substance. These 90-day notifications 

are required by section 612(e) of the 

CAA for producers of substitutes to 

class I substances for new uses and, in 

all other cases, by EPA regulations 

issued under sections 114 and 301 of 

the Act to implement section 612(c). 

Finally, since the inception of the 

SNAP program, we have interpreted the 

section 612 mandate to find substitutes 

acceptable or unacceptable to include 

the authority to act on our own to add 

or remove a substance from the SNAP 

lists. In determining whether to add or 

remove a substance from the SNAP lists, 

we consider whether there are other 

available substitutes that pose lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment. In determining whether to 

modify a listing of a substitute we 

undertake the same consideration, but 

do so in the light of new data not 

considered at the time of our original 

listing decision, including information 

on new substitutes and new information 

on substitutes previously reviewed. 

G. What does EPA consider in deciding 

whether to modify the listing status of 

an alternative? 

As described in this document and 

elsewhere, including in the initial SNAP 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), CAA 

section 612 requires EPA to list as 

unacceptable any substitute substance 

where it finds that there are other 

substitutes currently or potentially 

available that reduce overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

The initial SNAP rule included 

submission requirements and presented 

the environmental and health risk 

factors that the SNAP program considers 

in its comparative risk framework. 

Environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly 

depending on the particular application 

of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes 

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

EPA has, in many cases, found certain 

substitutes acceptable only for limited 

end-uses or subject to use restrictions. 

It has now been over twenty years 

since the initial SNAP rule was 

promulgated. In that period, the menu 

of available alternatives has expanded 

greatly and now includes many 

substitutes with diverse characteristics 

and varying effects on human health 

and the environment. When the SNAP 

program began, the number of 

substitutes available for consideration 

was, for many end-uses, somewhat 

limited. While the SNAP program’s 

initial comparative assessments of 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment were rigorous, often there 

were few substitutes upon which to 

apply the comparative assessment. The 

immediacy of the class I phaseout often 

meant that SNAP listed class II ODS 

(i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing 

that they too would be phased out and 

were only an interim solution. Other 

Title VI provisions such as the section 

610 Nonessential Products Ban and the 

section 605 Use Restriction made clear 

that a listing under the SNAP program 

could not convey permanence. 

Since EPA issued the initial SNAP 

rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 19 

rules and 30 notices that generally 

expand the menu of options for all 

SNAP sectors and end-uses. 

Comparisons today apply to a broader 

range of options—both chemical and 

non-chemical—than was available at the 

inception of the SNAP program. 

Industry experience with these 

substitutes has also grown during the 

history of the program. This varies by 

sector and by end-use. 

In addition to an expanding menu of 

substitutes, developments over the past 

20 years have improved our 

understanding of global environmental 

issues. With regard to that information, 

our review of substitutes in this rule 

includes comparative assessments that 

consider our evolving understanding of 

a variety of factors, including climate 

change. GWPs and climate effects are 

not new elements in our evaluation 

framework, but as is the case with all of 

our review criteria, the amount and 

quality of information has expanded. 

To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing 

management of the SNAP program 

considers new information and 

improved understanding of the risk to 

the environment and human health. 

EPA previously has taken several 

actions revising listing determinations 

from acceptable or acceptable with use 

conditions to unacceptable based on 

information made available to EPA after 

a listing was issued. For example, on 

January 26, 1999, EPA listed the 

refrigerant blend known by the trade 

name MT–31 as unacceptable for all 

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

an acceptable substitute in various enduses within the refrigeration and air 

conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 

30275). Based on new information about 

the toxicity of one of the chemicals in 

the blend, EPA subsequently removed 

MT–31 from the list of acceptable 

substitutes and listed it as unacceptable 

in all refrigeration and air conditioning 

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

Another example of EPA revising a 

listing determination occurred in 2007 

when EPA listed HCFC–22 and HCFC– 

142b as unacceptable for use in the foam 

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

These HCFCs, which are ozone 

depleting and subject to a global 

production phaseout, were initially 

listed as acceptable substitutes since 

they had a lower ODP than the 

substances they were replacing and 

there were no other available substitutes 

that posed lower overall risk at the time 

of EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered 

a path forward for some sectors and 

end-uses at a time when substitutes 

were far more limited. In light of the 

expanded availability of other 

substitutes with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment in 

specific foam end-uses, and taking into 

account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed the listing for 

these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from 

acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, 

EPA noted that continued use of these 

HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary 

depletion of the ozone layer and delay 

the transition to substitutes that pose 

lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment. EPA established a 

change of status date that recognized 

that existing users needed time to adjust 

their manufacturing processes to safely 

accommodate the use of other 

substitutes. 

H. Where can I get additional 

information about the SNAP program? 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42879 

18The relevant scientific and technical 

information summarized to support the 

Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute 

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

climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/

Endangerment_TSD.pdf. 

19 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global 

Climate System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons 

(Cambridge Univ Press, New York). 

20UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting 

Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations 

Environment Programme. 

21Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific 

and Papers, 2013. 

22Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: 

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/ 

NIST Conference 2012. 

23NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/

hfcs/. 

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

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

contribution of projected HFC emissions to future 

climate forcing. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. 

25HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and 

the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp 

26 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario 

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

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

In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

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

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

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

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP 

rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart G. A complete chronology of 

SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

citations are found at www.epa.gov/

ozone/snap/chron.html. 

III. What actions and information 

related to greenhouse gases have 

bearing on this final action to modify 

prior SNAP determinations? 

GWP is one of several criteria EPA 

considers in the overall evaluation of 

alternatives under the SNAP program. 

During the past two decades, the general 

science on climate change and the 

potential contributions of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate 

change have become better understood. 

On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, 

the Administrator issued two distinct 

findings regarding GHGs 18 under 

section 202(a) of the CAA: 

• Endangerment Finding: The current 

and projected concentrations of the six 

key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere—CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6)—threaten the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations. 

• Cause or Contribute Finding: The 

combined emissions of these wellmixed greenhouse gases from new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines contribute to the greenhouse gas 

pollution which threatens public health 

and welfare. 

Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are 

potent GHGs.19 Although they represent 

a small fraction of the current total 

volume of GHG emissions, their 

warming impact is very strong. The 

most commonly used HFC is HFC–134a. 

HFC–134a is 1,430 times more 

damaging to the climate system than 

carbon dioxide. HFC emissions are 

projected to increase substantially and 

at an increasing rate over the next 

several decades if left unregulated. In 

the United States, emissions of HFCs are 

increasing more quickly than those of 

any other GHGs, and globally they are 

increasing 10–15% annually.20 At that 

rate, emissions are projected to double 

by 2020 and triple by 2030.21 HFCs are 

rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. 

The atmospheric concentration of HFC– 

134a, the most abundant HFC, has 

increased by about 10% per year from 

2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of 

HFC–143a and HFC–125 have risen over 

13% and 16% per year from 2007–2011, 

respectively.22 23

Annual global emissions of HFCs are 

projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt 

CO2eq in 2050,24 which is comparable 

to the drop in annual GHG emissions 

from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 

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

buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is 

projected to increase radiative forcing 

by up to 0.4 W m¥2. This increase may 

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

the expected increase in radiative 

forcing due to the buildup of CO2 since 

2000, according to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report on 

Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 

2011). To appreciate the significance of 

the effect of projected HFC emissions 

within the context of all GHGs, HFCs 

would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the 

CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the 

IPCC’s highest CO2 emissions scenario 

and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2

emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest 

CO2 emissions pathway.25 26 Additional 

information concerning the peerreviewed scientific literature and 

emission scenarios is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. What petitions has EPA received 

requesting a change in listing status for 

HFCs? 

A. Summary of Petitions 

EPA received three petitions 

requesting EPA to modify certain 

acceptability listings of HFC–134a and 

HFC–134a blends. These petitions are 

more fully described in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The first 

petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, 

by Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute 

for Governance and Sustainable 

Development (IGSD), and the 

Environmental Investigation Agency-US 

(EIA). The petition requested that EPA 

remove HFC–134a from the list of 

acceptable substitutes in multiple enduses and move it to the list of 

unacceptable substitutes in those enduses. In support of their petition, the 

petitioners identified other substitutes 

that they claimed were available for use 

in those end-uses and they claimed 

these other substitutes present much 

lower risks to human health and 

environment than HFC–134a. 

On February 14, 2011, EPA found the 

petition complete for MVAC in new 

passenger cars and light-duty vehicles 

and determined it was incomplete for 

other uses of HFC–134a. EPA noted in 

its response that, at a future date, the 

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

one complete aspect of the petition, 

noting in particular that EPA would 

evaluate and take comment on many 

factors, including, but not limited to, the 

timeframe for introduction of newer 

substitutes for MVAC systems into the 

automotive market and potential lead 

time for manufacturers of motor 

vehicles to accommodate such 

substitutes. 

On April 26, 2012, EPA received a 

second petition submitted by EIA. EIA 

stated that, in light of the comparative 

nature of the SNAP program’s 

evaluation of substitutes and given that 

other acceptable substitutes are on the 

market or soon to be available, EPA 

should remove HFC–134a and HFC– 

134a blends from the list of acceptable 

substitutes for uses where EPA found 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and HCFCs 

to be nonessential under section 610 of 

the Act. EIA also requested that the 

schedule for moving HFC–134a and 

HFC–134a blends from the list of 

acceptable to unacceptable substitutes 

be based on the ‘‘most rapidly feasible 

transitions to one or more of the’’ 

acceptable substitutes for each use. The 

petitioner noted that initial approvals of 

HFC–134a for a number of end-uses 

occurred in the 1990s and were based 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

27See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097. 

on the assessment made then that 1) 

HFC–134a does not contribute to ozone 

depletion; 2) HFC–134a’s GWP and 

atmospheric lifetime were close to those 

of other substitutes that had been 

determined to be acceptable for the enduses; and 3) HFC–134a is not 

flammable, and its toxicity is low.27 The 

petitioner stated that the analysis used 

in the listing decisions may have been 

appropriate in the 1990s but was no 

longer so today given the range of other 

available or potentially available 

substitutes at present. 

On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the 

petitioner that this petition was 

incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have 

exchanged further correspondence that 

can be found in the docket. 

A third petition was filed on April 27, 

2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They 

requested that EPA: 

• Remove HFC–134a from the list of 

acceptable substitutes for CFC–12 in 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

stand-alone retail food refrigerators and 

freezers; 

• Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed 

refrigerants to all except certified 

technicians with access to service tools 

required under existing EPA 

regulations; 

• Adopt a standardized procedure to 

determine the speed of transition from 

obsolete high-GWP HFCs to nextgeneration alternatives and substitutes; 

• Remove, in addition to HFC–134a, 

all other refrigerants with 100-year 

GWPs greater than 150 from the 

acceptable list for household 

refrigerators and freezers and standalone retail food refrigerators and 

freezers. 

On August 7, 2013, EPA found this 

petition to be incomplete. EPA and the 

petitioner have exchanged further 

correspondence that can be found in the 

docket. 

B. How This Action Relates to the 

Climate Action Plan and Petitions 

This action is consistent with a 

provision in the President’s CAP 

announced June 2013: Moving forward, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

will use its authority through the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program to encourage private sector 

investment in low-emissions technology 

by identifying and approving climatefriendly chemicals while prohibiting 

certain uses of the most harmful 

chemical alternatives. 

The CAP further states: ‘‘to reduce 

emissions of HFCs, the United States 

can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions.’’ This rule is also 

consistent with that call for leadership 

through domestic actions. As regards 

international leadership, for the past 

five years, the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico have proposed an 

amendment to the Montreal Protocol to 

phase down the production and 

consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of 

the amendment proposal would yield 

significant reductions of over 90 

gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2eq) through 2050. 

This action also addresses certain 

aspects of the three petitions referred to 

above. First, this action responds to the 

one aspect of the three petitions that 

EPA found complete, namely 

petitioners’ request that EPA change the 

listing of HFC–134a from acceptable to 

unacceptable in new MVAC systems. 

(See section V.B.) Second, regarding the 

remaining aspects of the three petitions, 

which EPA found to be incomplete, EPA 

has independently acquired sufficient 

information to address certain other 

requests made by the petitioners. EPA’s 

action in this final rule may be 

considered responsive to certain aspects 

of those petitions such as: Changing the 

listing of certain HFCs used in specific 

aerosol uses from acceptable to 

unacceptable or acceptable, subject to 

use conditions; changing the listing of 

certain HFCs used in specific foams 

end-uses from acceptable to 

unacceptable for most uses; changing 

the listing of HFC–134a from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new stand-alone 

retail food refrigerators and freezers; and 

changing the listing of a number of 

refrigerant blends with higher GWPs 

from acceptable to unacceptable for new 

and retrofit stand-alone retail food 

refrigerators and freezers. Specifically, 

as explained in more detail in the 

sector-specific sections of this 

document, we are revising the listings 

for substitutes in the aerosols, foams, 

and refrigeration and air conditioning 

sectors that pose significantly greater 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment as compared with other 

available or potentially available 

substitutes in the specified end-uses. 

Throughout the process of our 

discussions with the regulated 

community, we have sought to convey 

our continued understanding of the role 

that certainty plays in enabling the 

robust development and uptake of 

alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the 

key strengths of the SNAP program, 

such as its chemical and end-use 

specific consideration, its multi-criteria 

basis for action, and its petition process, 

tend to militate against some measures 

that could provide more certainty, such 

as setting specific numerical criteria for 

environmental evaluations (e.g., all 

compounds with GWP greater than 150). 

That being said, we believe that the 

action we are taking today, and future 

action we may take, does provide 

additional certainty in the specific cases 

addressed. In addition, we remain 

committed to continuing to actively 

seek stakeholder views and to share our 

thinking at the earliest moment 

practicable on any future actions, as part 

of our commitment to provide greater 

certainty to producers and consumers in 

SNAP-regulated industrial sectors. 

V. What is EPA’s final action 

concerning the HFCs addressed in this 

rule? 

A. Aerosols 

1. Background 

The SNAP program provides listings 

for two aerosol end-uses: Propellants 

and solvents. Aerosols typically use a 

liquefied or compressed gas to propel 

active ingredients in liquid, paste, or 

powder form. In the case of duster 

sprays used to blow dust and 

contaminants off of surfaces, the 

propellant is also itself the active 

ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a 

solvent, which may be used in 

manufacturing, maintenance and repair 

to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. 

Historically, a variety of propellants 

and solvents have been available to 

formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, 

isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., 

CO2, N2, N2O, and compressed air) have 

long been used as propellants. Prior to 

1978, the aerosol industry 

predominantly used CFCs. In 1978, in 

response to evidence regarding 

depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the 

United States banned CFC propellants, 

with few exceptions. 

Many consumer products that 

previously used CFC propellants were 

reformulated or replaced with a variety 

of alternatives, including not-in-kind 

substitutes, such as pump sprays or 

solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol 

propellant substitutes included HCFCs, 

HCs, HFCs, compressed gases, and 

oxygenated organic compounds. 

However, since the 1990s HCFCs have 

been controlled substances under the 

Montreal Protocol and subject to 

regulation under the CAA, as amended 

in 1990, including a phaseout of 

production and import under section 

605(b)–(c) and use restrictions under 

section 605(a). 

2. What is EPA finalizing concerning 

aerosols? 

For aerosol propellants, EPA 

proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016: 

• HFC–125 as unacceptable; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42881 

28EPA did not explicitly state in our proposal 

whether blends of HFC–134a and HFC–227ea 

would also be acceptable subject to use conditions. 

However, in general in the SNAP program, blends 

of acceptable aerosol propellants are also acceptable 

and do not require separate approval. 

29 Includes veterinary purposes. 

• HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

specific types of technical and medical 

aerosols (e.g., MDIs) and 

• HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, allowing its use only in 

MDIs.28

Today’s action changes the status of 

HFC–125; HFC–227ea; blends of HFC– 

134a and HFC–227ea; and HFC–134a, as 

follows: 

• We are changing the status of the 

aerosol propellant HFC–125 from 

acceptable to unacceptable as of January 

1, 2016. 

• We are changing the status of HFC– 

134a, HFC–227ea, and blends of HFC– 

134a and HFC–227ea from acceptable to 

unacceptable for use as aerosol 

propellants as of July 20, 2016 except 

for those uses specifically listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

• We are changing the status of the 

aerosol propellant HFC–227ea and for 

blends of HFC–227ea and HFC–134a 

from acceptable to acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for 

use in MDIs approved by FDA. 

• We are changing the status of the 

aerosol propellant HFC–134a from 

acceptable to acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as of July 20, 2016, until 

January 1, 2018, for the following 

specific uses: Products for which new 

formulations require federal 

governmental review, including: EPA 

pesticide registration, military (U.S. 

Department of Defense (DoD)) or space 

agency (National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)) specifications, 

or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and 

products for smoke detector 

functionality testing. 

• We are changing the status of the 

aerosol propellant HFC–134a from 

acceptable to acceptable, subject to use 

conditions as of July 20, 2016, for the 

following specific uses: Cleaning 

products for removal of grease, flux and 

other soils from electrical equipment or 

electronics; refrigerant flushes; products 

for sensitivity testing of smoke 

detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays 

for electrical equipment or electronics; 

sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays 

containing corrosion preventive 

compounds used in the maintenance of 

aircraft, electrical equipment or 

electronics, or military equipment; 

pesticides for use near electrical wires, 

in aircraft, in total release insecticide 

foggers, or in certified organic use 

pesticides for which EPA has 

specifically disallowed all other lowerGWP propellants; mold release agents 

and mold cleaners; lubricants and 

cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic 

fabrics; duster sprays specifically for use 

on removal of dust from photographic 

negatives, semiconductor chips, 

specimens under electron microscopes, 

and energized electrical equipment; 

adhesives and sealants in large 

canisters; document preservation 

sprays; MDIs approved by FDA for 

medical purposes,29 wound care sprays; 

topical coolant sprays for pain relief; 

and products for removing bandage 

adhesives from skin. 

The change of status determinations 

for aerosols are summarized in the 

following table: 

TABLE 2—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR AEROSOLS

End-use Substitutes Decision Uses that are acceptable, subject to use conditions 

Propellants ................... HFC–125 .................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2016.

None. 

Propellants ................... HFC–134a .................. Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016 

except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.

From July 20, 2016 to January 1, 2018: Products for 

smoke detector functionality testing; products for which 

new formulations require governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or space agency specifications, or FDA approval (other than MDIs). 

As of July 20, 2016: Cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment; 

refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of 

smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft 

maintenance; sprays containing corrosion preventive 

compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; 

pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in 

total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic 

use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold release 

agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for 

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

semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equipment; adhesives 

and sealants in large canisters; document preservation 

sprays; FDA-approved MDIs for medical purposes; 

wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing bandage adhesives 

from skin. 

Propellants ................... HFC–227ea and 

blends of HFC– 

227ea and HFC– 

134a.

Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016 

except for uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.

As of July 20, 2016: FDA-approved MDIs for medical 

purposes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

30 GWP values cited in this final rule are from the 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated 

otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP 

values shall be determined consistent with the 

calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and 

referenced materials. 

(a) What other alternatives are available? 

EPA is changing the listing decisions 

for HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

and blends of HFC–134a and HFC– 

227ea, with some exceptions, because, 

as discussed in more detail in this 

section, for the uses for which we are 

listing these substitutes as unacceptable, 

alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds 

and technological options) are available 

or potentially available that reduce the 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment. Other substitutes listed as 

acceptable propellants include HFC– 

152a, HFO–1234ze(E), butane, propane, 

isobutane, CO2 and other compressed 

gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In 

addition, technological options include 

not-in-kind alternatives such as finger/ 

trigger pumps, powder formulations, 

sticks, rollers, brushes, and wipes. 

These alternatives have GWPs ranging 

from zero to 124 compared with HFC– 

134a’s GWP of 1,430, HFC–227ea’s GWP 

of 3,220 and HFC–125’s GWP of 3,500.30

All of these alternatives, both the ones 

remaining acceptable and those for 

which we are changing the listing, have 

an ODP of zero, are relatively low in 

toxicity, and are capable of remaining 

below their respective exposure limits 

when used as aerosol propellants. In 

addition to GWP, some of the other 

environmental and health attributes that 

the SNAP program considers that differ 

for these alternatives include impacts on 

local air quality and flammability. For 

example, butane, propane, isobutane, 

and DME are VOC as well as being 

flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, 

and DME are not excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of state 

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards. Thus, these 

propellants are subject to federal, state, 

and local regulation that may prevent 

their use as a propellant in aerosols in 

some states and counties that have 

nonattainment areas for ground-level 

ozone and restrict their use under this 

action. HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), and 

the compressed gas CO2 are exempted 

from the definition of VOC under these 

regulations and their use is expected to 

have negligible impact on ground-level 

ozone levels. As well as HFC–152a, 

HFO–1234ze(E), and CO2, compressed 

N2 and not-in-kind alternatives are not 

VOC. 

The aerosols industry is generally 

familiar with how to address 

flammability risks. The aerosols 

industry has been using flammable 

compounds, including flammable 

propellants, for decades, consistent with 

OSHA requirements addressing 

flammability. There may be greater 

flammability risks for some specific uses 

of aerosol products because of their use 

in situations where there is a source of 

heat or electrical energy that could 

cause a fire (e.g., use on energized 

electrical equipment). Concerns with 

flammability occur more with industrial 

products, often referred to as ‘‘technical 

aerosols.’’ For further discussion on 

consumer aerosols, technical aerosols, 

and medical aerosols, see the NPRM at 

79 FR 46136 through 46138 (August 6, 

2014). 

There are a number of alternatives 

with GWPs lower than the GWPs for the 

substitutes that we are listing as 

unacceptable and that are not defined as 

VOC for purposes of SIPs, including: 

HFC–152a with a GWP of 124, HFO– 

1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6, and CO2

with a GWP of 1. CO2 and HFO– 

1234ze(E) are nonflammable under 

ambient temperature conditions, while 

HFC–152a is flammable, but less so than 

hydrocarbons or DME. All three have 

GWPs significantly lower than those of 

the HFCs for which we are changing the 

listing (range of GWPs from 1,430 to 

3,500 for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea and 

HFC–125). 

(1) Aerosols With Flammability and 

Vapor Pressure Constraints 

Aerosols for industrial and 

commercial uses often require 

nonflammability and in some cases, 

specific vapor pressure criteria. For 

example, nonflammable aerosols are 

needed for use on energized electrical 

circuits, where sparking can create a fire 

or explosion hazard. Of the different 

alternatives that have previously been 

listed as acceptable, the nonflammable 

options at room temperature include 

HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

HFO–1234ze(E), compressed gases 

including CO2 and N2, and not-in-kind 

products. At slightly higher 

temperatures (30 °C or 85 °F), HFO– 

1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher 

flammability limits, and thus in theory 

could catch fire under specific 

conditions of concentration and applied 

energy. Some aerosol product 

formulators have expressed concern that 

the lower vapor pressure of HFO– 

1234ze(E) and the significantly higher 

vapor pressure of CO2 and other 

compressed gases may not provide 

adequate performance in propelling the 

contents of a can for technical aerosols 

or may exceed Department of 

Transportation pressure requirements 

under elevated temperatures (ITW 

Polymers Sealants, 2014). For 

comparison, the vapor pressures of 

HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–134a, and CO2 at 

20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5,776 

kPa, respectively. 

Based on the information available 

today, EPA believes it cannot list HFC– 

134a as unacceptable for all aerosol 

uses. Thus, we are creating a use 

condition that would restrict use of 

HFC–134a to specific uses for which 

alternatives are not currently or 

potentially available. 

Both HFC–227ea and HFC–125 have 

significantly higher GWPs than HFC– 

134a (HFC–227ea’s GWP is 3220 and 

HFC–125’s GWP is 3500) or other 

substitutes that could be potentially 

used where flammability is a concern, 

and there is not a significantly different 

level of risk based on the other factors 

that we consider. Thus, EPA has 

determined that HFC–227ea and HFC– 

125 pose significantly more risk than 

other available substitutes and EPA is 

changing their listing from acceptable to 

unacceptable in most uses where HFC– 

134a may be used to mitigate 

flammability risks. We note that we are 

not aware of any use of HFC–227ea or 

of HFC–125 in industrial aerosols to 

mitigate flammability risks. 

(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses 

For medical aerosols, there are special 

needs to address safety and toxicity. 

Furthermore, in order for a substitute to 

be available for use in medical devices, 

the device using the substitute must first 

be reviewed and approved by the FDA. 

FDA has approved medications for 

use in MDIs using HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, and blends of these two HFCs as 

propellants. No medications have been 

approved for use in MDIs using other 

propellants. Although some dry powder 

inhalers that are not-in-kind substitutes 

are approved by FDA, these alternatives 

do not work for some situations. Thus, 

we cannot conclude that there are other 

alternatives available for use in MDIs 

that pose lower risk than HFC–134a, 

HFC–227ea, or blends of these two. In 

addition, it is our understanding that 

because of differences in the solubility 

of water in HFC–134a and HFC–227ea, 

there are some medications that are 

sensitive to the presence of water for 

which only HFC–227ea may be used in 

an MDI. 

For other medical uses, EPA is aware 

of medical aerosols that currently are 

using hydrocarbons or DME as the 

propellant, as well as not-in-kind 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42883 

alternatives for uses such as antifungals, 

calamine sprays, freeze sprays for wart 

removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 

2014a). However, EPA does not have 

information that alternatives other than 

HFC–134a are available and are 

approved by FDA as propellants in 

wound care sprays; topical coolant 

sprays for pain relief; and products for 

removing bandage adhesives from skin. 

The available substitutes for medical 

devices are limited to those approved by 

FDA, and the available substitutes differ 

by the type of product and medical 

conditions treated. For these reasons, 

we are listing HFC–134a, HFC–227ea 

and blends of HFC–134a and HFC– 

227ea as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for specific uses for which 

other alternatives that pose lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment are not currently or 

potentially available. The use 

conditions limit use of HFC–227ea and 

blends of HFC–227ea and HFC–134a to 

MDIs approved by FDA and limit use of 

HFC–134a to MDIs approved by FDA 

and the other medical uses listed above. 

HFC–125 has a GWP of 3,500, which 

is higher than the GWP of all other 

alternatives that are available for use as 

aerosol propellants (HFC–227ea has a 

GWP of 3,220; HFC–134a has a GWP of 

1,430; HFO–1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). 

Like HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, CO2 and 

HFO–1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, 

nonflammable and low in toxicity. We 

are not aware of any medical or other 

aerosols currently using HFC–125, or of 

any FDA approval for aerosols using 

HFC–125. For these reasons, we have 

determined that there are other available 

substitutes that pose lower overall risks 

to human health and the environment in 

this use and we are changing the listing 

of HFC–125 from acceptable to 

unacceptable. 

For more information on the 

environmental and health properties of 

the different aerosol substitutes, please 

see the proposed rule at 79 FR 46137– 

46138 and a technical support 

document that provides the additional 

Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) 

in the docket. 

(b) When will the listings change? 

On or after January 1, 2016, aerosol 

products may not be manufactured with 

HFC–125 and on or after July 20, 2016, 

aerosol products may not be 

manufactured with HFC–134a or HFC– 

227ea, or blends thereof except for the 

specific uses allowed under the use 

conditions. In addition, as of January 1, 

2018, HFC–134a will be unacceptable 

for certain uses, and aerosol products 

for those uses may not be manufactured 

with HFC–134a as of that date: 

• Products for which new 

formulations require U.S. federal 

government review, including: EPA 

pesticide registration, military or space 

agency specifications, and FDA 

approval (aside from MDIs); and 

• products for functional testing of 

smoke detectors. 

In the case of HFC–125, EPA is 

unaware of any products using HFC– 

125, and no public commenters 

mentioned the existence of such 

products or requested a date other than 

the proposed date of January 1, 2016. 

We are setting July 20, 2016, as the 

date on which the status of HFC–134a, 

HFC–227ea, and blends thereof will 

change to unacceptable, or to 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

certain specific uses. For those uses that 

would no longer be allowed as of July 

20, 2016, this timeframe will allow 

formulators and packagers of aerosols to 

make the necessary changes. (ICF, 

2014a; Honeywell, 2014a). A number of 

formulators have already been testing, 

and in many cases introducing, new 

formulations with alternatives that 

remain listed acceptable. This timing 

will provide affected aerosol 

manufacturers and packagers sufficient 

time to change and test formulations 

and, to the extent necessary, to change 

the equipment in their factories. 

For two aerosol uses, continued use of 

HFC–134a will be allowed under the 

use conditions until January 1, 2018. 

EPA is providing this longer transition 

time for these two uses because of 

additional safety precautions and 

approvals outside of the control of the 

aerosol formulator that must be 

addressed before transitioning. The first 

category is those that must undergo 

specific federal governmental reviews: 

EPA pesticide registration under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, military or space 

agency specifications, and FDA 

approval. The second category is aerosol 

products for functional testing of smoke 

detectors, which have National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 72 

requirements adopted in building codes. 

These types of aerosols must be tested 

not only for performance but also 

reviewed by third parties for 

compliance with regulatory or code 

requirements or military specifications. 

Given both the safety implications of 

insufficient testing and the additional 

time required for third-party testing 

and/or governmental approval that is 

not required for other aerosol 

formulations, we have determined that 

alternatives that reduce overall risk will 

not be available for these uses until 

January 1, 2018. 

As of the change of status dates, 

products cannot be manufactured with 

HFC–134a or HFC–227ea or blends 

thereof except for the aerosol product 

types that are listed under the use 

conditions. Products manufactured 

prior to the change of status date may 

still be sold, imported, exported, and 

used by the end-user after that date. As 

discussed below in the responses to 

comment, restricting use of aerosols by 

the end-user, as well as restricting the 

sale of previously manufactured 

aerosols, may disrupt the market and 

may not result in environmental 

benefits. 

3. How is EPA responding to comments 

about this end-use? 

(a) Timeline 

Comment: EPA received comments 

from a number of commenters on the 

status change date of HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, and HFC–125 as an aerosol 

propellant. Members of the aerosol 

industry proposed alternate years 

ranging from 2018 to 2021, always in 

reference to HFC–134a or to ‘‘technical’’ 

aerosols. Reasons provided for these 

dates included aligning with the 

European Union’s (EU) timeline of 

January 1, 2018; a need for at least one 

to two more years to complete 

reformulation and all testing required; 

and additional time of two to five years 

to complete approval processes: e.g., 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 

approvals to meet NFPA requirements, 

EPA pesticide registration or testing for 

conformance with military 

specifications. Members of the aerosol 

industry also suggested that January 1, 

2016, is too soon to transition away 

from HFC–134a because of the need for 

coordination with other regulatory 

requirements, because of business 

considerations including the timing of 

the need for budgeting for capital 

expenditures, developing and 

implementing worker education, 

negotiating contracts between aerosol 

formulators and retailers, and for 

technical reasons such as stability issues 

with HFO–1234ze(E), one of the 

alternatives that remains acceptable for 

use. NRDC and IGSD stated that EPA 

must maintain its 2016 timeline for 

transition to ensure that important 

climate reductions are realized. 

Response: In determining when 

alternatives that reduce overall risk will 

be available for use, EPA considers 

technical constraints on the use of other 

alternatives, including when other 

alternatives may be used consistent with 

safety requirements. Unlike some enduses, such as some of the refrigeration 

end-uses, there are a much wider variety 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of uses with a much broader range of 

considerations under the aerosol 

propellant end-use. While there are 

exceptions, as we address in this action, 

for most of these wide-ranging uses, we 

do not anticipate significant hurdles to 

transitioning to alternatives. Based on 

information provided by the 

manufacturer of HFO–1234ze(E), a 

number of their customers have been 

able to develop and introduce aerosol 

products using HFO–1234ze(E) in a 

matter of months rather than years. 

Except in limited cases, as discussed 

below, commenters requesting a longer 

transition period did not provide 

concrete support for why more time for 

specific uses is needed, resting only on 

general statements that time is needed 

for ‘‘formulation’’ and ‘‘testing.’’ Based 

on the information available showing 

that manufacturers have been able to 

transition relatively quickly, but also 

recognizing that there may be some 

variation in the time needed for specific 

uses, we are establishing a change of 

status date of July 20, 2016—roughly 

seven months later than the proposed 

date of January 1, 2016. This will allow 

approximately one year from the time 

this rule is issued in which 

manufacturers should be able to address 

their generalized testing and 

reformulation concerns. Also, HFC– 

134a remains acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for many uses, reducing the 

number of products for which 

companies must reformulate, test, and 

transition to other alternatives. 

For certain aerosol products using 

HFC–134a that must go through a 

federal government or other third-party 

approval process for new formulations, 

we are establishing a change of status 

date of January 1, 2018. These products 

include those needing EPA pesticide 

registration, testing to U.S. military or 

space agency specifications, and FDA 

approval (aside from MDIs). In addition, 

we are establishing a change of status 

date of January 1, 2018, for a product 

that requires extensive testing to NFPA 

standards, specifically for smoke 

detector functional testing. Based on 

information received during the public 

comment period, we have determined 

that for these specific uses, alternatives 

that pose less risk are not available until 

these testing and registration processes 

are complete. 

EPA disagrees that we should align 

the timelines in this rule with the EU 

timelines. The EU regulations rely upon 

different authority than the SNAP 

program, and reflect the European 

context. We believe it is appropriate for 

EPA decisions to base timelines upon 

when alternatives that reduce overall 

risk are available in the United States. 

Comment: National Aerosol 

Association (NAA), Radiator Specialty 

Company (RSC), LPS Laboratories, 

Consumer Specialty Products 

Association (CSPA), and Aeropres 

commented that there is currently no 

industry consensus on the safe handling 

of HFO–1234ze(E) (and ‘‘any alternative 

products’’) in aerosol plants. CSPA 

states that the CSPA Aerosol Propellants 

Safety Manual will need to be updated 

to include new propellants like HFO– 

1234ze(E), and that the consensus 

guidelines will then be used to assure 

that fire and building codes are updated 

to properly cover new propellants. The 

commenter also states that while they 

seek consensus on updating their safety 

manual, companies are able to proceed 

using the guidance provided by the 

supplier, but many CSPA members 

prefer to await industry consensus 

standards. LPS Laboratories comments 

that applicable codes need to be 

updated before other alternatives can be 

used and suggests that a January 1, 

2018, date for listing HFC–134a as 

unacceptable is more appropriate. 

Response: In the absence of industry 

consensus guidance, a number of 

aerosol formulators are already 

manufacturing products safely using 

HFO–1234ze(E) relying upon safety 

guidelines developed by the chemical 

producer. No commenters raised, and 

we are unaware of, any specific safety 

concerns that are not addressed in this 

guidance issued by the chemical 

producer. CSPA mentioned updating 

fire and building codes using the 

consensus guidelines, but did not state 

how these are related and also indicated 

that some companies have been able to 

move ahead without updates to fire and 

building codes based upon the 

guidance. For that reason, we do not 

believe there is a basis for determining 

that HFO–1234ze(E) is not available for 

safe use until January 1, 2018, as 

suggested by commenters. 

(b) Sell-Through Period 

Comment: Honeywell stated that there 

should be a limited sell-through period 

to prevent stranded inventories for 

aerosol products, while avoiding delays 

in the transition to low-GWP 

substitutes. The commenter suggested 

that EPA prohibit the sale, import and 

export of aerosol products manufactured 

with unacceptable substitutes by no 

later than January 1, 2017. The 

commenter also suggested that the sellthrough period should apply only to 

products that were manufactured prior 

to January 1, 2016, and that have 

entered the distribution channel. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s suggestion that a limited 

sell-through period would be sufficient. 

Based on past experience with 

implementing a limited sell-through 

period for certain kinds of aerosols 

containing CFCs and with implementing 

an unlimited sell-through period for 

other aerosols, we found that a limited 

sell-through can result in market 

disruption and can strand inventory. 

Further, a limited sell-through period 

does not necessarily preclude emissions 

of HFCs to the environment because 

while manufacturers and distributors 

would need to dispose of stranded 

inventory, there is no current 

requirement prohibiting venting of the 

contents to the atmosphere (unlike for 

refrigeration or MVAC). In this rule, we 

allow new cars or new stand-alone 

refrigeration equipment manufactured 

with HFC–134a before the change of 

status date to be used and serviced after 

the change of status date to avoid 

market disruption, creation of stranded 

inventory, and perverse incentives for 

releasing refrigerant to the environment; 

a closely analogous treatment for 

aerosols is to allow manufacturers and 

distributors to sell and end users to use 

aerosol products manufactured before 

the relevant change of status date. 

Finally, because of the relatively short 

period from issuance of EPA’s final rule 

to the compliance date, we do not 

expect that there will be a large 

accumulation of inventory. Accordingly, 

this rule allows for an unlimited sellthrough and use period for covered 

aerosol products manufactured before 

the change of status date. 

(c) Use Conditions 

Comment: Honeywell, the producer of 

HFO–1234ze(E), stated that there are 

either commercially available products 

or shelf-ready products that have not yet 

been commercialized that do not 

contain HFC–134a for some of the uses 

for which EPA proposed to change the 

status of HFC–134a, to acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, including 

cleaning products for electronics, sprays 

for aircraft maintenance, and dusters. 

Response: EPA agrees, and we note 

that the uses identified in the use 

conditions encompass a variety of 

highly specific uses. While products 

without one of these substitutes or a 

blend of these substitutes might be used 

in one specific use, this does not hold 

true for the entire range of uses in the 

use category. In particular, this is the 

case for uses where flammability is of 

concern, such as for electronics cleaning 

and specialty dusters that are used on 

high-voltage equipment. In the future, 

additional testing may indicate that 

other alternatives, such as HFO– 

1234ze(E), can be used safely even 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42885 

under conditions where flammability is 

of concern, but the information 

available to date is not currently 

sufficient. Thus, we agree with other 

commenters from the aerosol industry, 

such as CSPA, that HFC–134a continues 

to be necessary in specific uses where 

other alternatives that pose less overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment are not available. 

Comment: Arkema asked whether 

EPA is proposing that HFC–227ea 

continue to be acceptable for MDIs 

because of ‘‘the volumes or a record of 

unique suitability for a particular 

purpose,’’ when HFC–134a might pose 

lower overall risk compared to HFC– 

227ea, since its GWP is less than half 

that of HFC–227ea. 

Response: Arkema’s comment seems 

to suggest that we should list HFC– 

227ea as unacceptable for use in MDIs, 

because it has a higher GWP than HFC– 

134a; we disagree. Although the GWP 

for HFC–227ea is significantly higher 

than that for HFC–134a, our 

understanding is that there are technical 

reasons why HFC–134a may not 

perform adequately as a propellant in 

MDIs using certain kinds of 

medications. For example, because 

some medications could react or 

degrade in the presence of moisture, and 

water is much more soluble in HFC– 

134a than in HFC–227ea, further 

technical work is needed to determine 

if HFC–134a is able to serve as a 

propellant in all MDIs. Currently, it is 

our understanding that for those types 

of medications, there are no alternatives 

to HFC–227ea that pose lower overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Comment: The International 

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium 

(IPAC) and Mexichem Fluor, Inc. 

(Mexichem) suggested using the same 

language for the listing for MDIs for 

HFC–227ea as for HFC–134a. IPAC, 

Mexichem, and King & Spaulding 

suggested revising the language to apply 

to a wider group of medical uses, 

including the treatment of conditions or 

diseases of other organs (for example 

diabetes) where aerosols can be used for 

systemic delivery through the lung or 

nose, or that HFC–134a and HFC–227ea 

should be allowed for any medical MDI 

that has been FDA-approved regardless 

of disease condition treated. One of the 

commenters also stated it should be 

made clear that blends of HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea are also acceptable for such 

use. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the lists of medical 

conditions treated with MDIs should be 

consistent for HFC–134a and HFC– 

227ea. Additionally, we agree that the 

language should more clearly specify 

our intent, which is to cover all MDI 

uses for which FDA has approved HFC– 

134a, HFC–227ea, or blends of these 

HFCs. This would include the wider 

group of medical uses suggested by King 

& Spaulding, including the treatment of 

conditions or diseases of other organs 

(for example diabetes) where aerosols 

can be used for systemic delivery 

through the lung or nose. It is our 

understanding that HFC–134a and HFC– 

227ea are the only available alternatives 

for MDIs approved by FDA, with dry 

powder inhalers as an additional 

possible not-in-kind alternative in 

limited cases. Thus, we believe that 

there are no other alternatives available 

or potentially available for all MDIs 

approved by FDA that pose less risk 

overall to human health and the 

environment. We have revised the 

wording of the regulatory listing 

decision to make clear that the use 

condition for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

and blends of HFC–134a and HFC– 

227ea applies to all MDIs approved by 

FDA. 

Comment: HSI (Fire & Safety Group, 

LLC), Honeywell, DuPont, and EIA 

commented that there are available 

alternatives and there is sufficient 

supply of these alternatives to support 

EPA’s proposed change of status 

decisions for the aerosol propellants 

end-use. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters that, for the most part, 

there is a sufficient supply of 

alternatives that will support a 

transition away from the substitutes that 

we have concluded provide a greater 

risk to human health and the 

environment. However, as discussed in 

more detail above and in response to 

other comments, in some specific cases 

we received information that 

demonstrates the existence of 

technological challenges that support a 

later date for the change in status. In 

those cases, we are providing a later 

date. 

Comment: Commenters in the aerosol 

industry commented on situations 

where some alternatives other than 

HFC–134a are not effective or feasible. 

NAA commented that if CO2 were 

feasible, it would already be used. LPS 

Laboratories commented that 

formulators must consider chemical 

compatibility with formulations; for 

example, CO2 cannot be used with 

water-based formulations due to the 

formation of carbonic acid. LPS 

Laboratories commented that nitrogen 

has very limited uses due to its lack of 

solubility and the substantial pressure 

drop that occurs as the product is used. 

Response: EPA recognizes that not all 

alternative propellants work in every 

particular formulation. The commenters 

have described specific situations where 

CO2 and nitrogen may not be 

appropriate propellants. However, other 

alternatives are also listed as acceptable. 

HFO–1234ze(E) and HFC–152a have 

some physical similarities with HFC– 

134a and the commenters do not claim 

that these other alternatives are not 

available. 

Comment: NRDC and IGSD urged the 

Agency to deny any requests in the 

aerosols sector for additional 

exemptions. 

Response: EPA has considered the 

comments and information submitted 

during the comment period and is 

adding a limited number of uses to the 

use conditions that would allow 

continued use of HFC–134a, HFC– 

227ea, or blends thereof for the reasons 

provided elsewhere in this preamble. 

Comment: Honeywell, NAA, and 

CSPA commented on the 

nonflammability of HFO–1234ze(E). 

NAA indicated that HFO–1234ze(E) was 

found to be nonflammable by a number 

of standard tests (e.g., ASTM E-681) and 

aerosol flammability test methods (e.g., 

flame extension, enclosed space 

ignition), as well as by a non-standard 

test including a test that found no 

ignition up to temperatures greater than 

900 °F. Honeywell commented that 

while it is accurate to say that HFO– 

1234ze(E) may exhibit vapor flame 

limits at elevated temperatures, that is 

only one of many properties that must 

be taken into consideration when 

characterizing HFO–1234ze(E) and its 

usefulness in formulating nonflammable 

aerosol products. This commenter also 

provided additional information about 

other tests on the flammability of HFO– 

1234ze(E). CSPA said that there is still 

some concern about the potential for 

flammability at higher ambient 

temperatures, and that CSPA member 

product marketers, formulators and 

manufacturers are working to assure 

that specific products in various 

categories can be formulated, 

manufactured and used safely and 

effectively. 

Response: Based on the information 

available to EPA at this time, we agree 

that HFO–1234ze(E) is nonflammable in 

most situations that aerosols will be 

used. However, we have not seen results 

of testing that cover all of the types of 

products for which there are concerns 

about the need for a nonflammable 

aerosol propellant, such as aerosol 

products used on energized circuits or 

other electrical equipment. For other 

uses, where we have evidence of 

product-specific testing on HFO– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1234ze(E) showing nonflammability 

(e.g., tire inflators), we have concluded 

that the flammability risks of HFO– 

1234ze(E) are not a significant concern. 

Comment: Several commenters 

discussed flammability concerns for tire 

inflators, with some suggesting that they 

should be added as a use for which 

HFC–134a is acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, others suggesting a later 

change of status date, and others 

supporting the proposal. NAA and RSC 

stated that due to past accidents traced 

to flammability of tire inflators, it is 

necessary to test all aspects of the 

inflators to ensure that there are no 

flammability issues with HFO– 

1234ze(E). RSC and Honeywell 

commented on the specific testing 

required to ensure that new tire inflators 

using HFO–1234ze(E) are 

nonflammable, because of the 

possibility of ignition sources such as 

application of a torch to the rim of the 

tire or sparking from metal tools 

contacting a steel belt during tire repair. 

ITW Global Tire Repair commented that 

previous Aerosol Tire Inflators were 

flammable and there were several 

accidents in which tire repair 

professionals were injured when a spark 

ignited the product. This commenter 

also stated that EPA should not dismiss 

the need for a nonflammable product 

because other aspects of motor vehicles 

are flammable; tires and wheels have 

not been designed and engineered to 

contain flammable products, unlike 

many other flammable products in 

motor vehicles. CSPA referred to a 

March, 1999 recall from the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) recall for 32 million units of 

an aerosol tire inflator due to injuries 

caused by the product’s flammability. 

Mexichem comments HFO–1234ze(E) 

requires further evaluation before 

implementation for emergency tire 

inflators and sealers because of its 

flammability and uncertainty regarding 

its compatibility with sealants. 

Honeywell, the manufacturer of HFO– 

1234ze(E), commented that third-party 

testing of aerosol tire inflators using 

HFO–1234ze(E) found them to be 

nonflammable. 

Response: We acknowledge that there 

have been reports of accidents 

associated with use of flammable tire 

inflators in the past, particularly 

affecting tire repair professionals. Not 

all manufacturers of tire inflators agree 

that a nonflammable propellant is 

necessary, given there are tire inflators 

using hydrocarbons already on the 

market. Although HFO–1234ze(E) can 

ignite under higher temperature 

conditions using the standard test 

ASTM E 681, a relevant question is 

whether data indicate that an aerosol 

tire inflator using HFO–1234ze(E) 

would be flammable under the pressure, 

temperature, and likely ignition sources 

specific to this use. This will ensure a 

relevant risk comparison and will not 

compare to other flammable substances 

used in other parts of a motor vehicle. 

One manufacturer of aerosol tire 

inflators has tested a formulation using 

HFO–1234ze(E) and has found it is 

nonflammable under the conditions that 

exist for use of a tire inflator (RSC, 

2014). Therefore, other alternatives are 

available besides HFC–134a that 

sufficiently mitigate flammability risks 

for this use. Concerning RSC’s 

suggestion for a change of status date of 

January 1, 2018, to give sufficient time 

for additional testing, the commenter 

provided insufficient information on the 

types of testing or timeframes involved 

to warrant providing additional time. 

Further, in this final rule, we are 

providing roughly an additional seven 

months beyond the date in the proposal 

to meet commenters’ general comments 

about requiring additional time for 

testing. Based on the information 

available, HFO–1234ze(E) is an option 

that other manufacturers of aerosol tire 

inflators are using to formulate products 

that are not flammable under the 

conditions expected for that use. 

Comment: Commenters from the 

aerosol industry requested that EPA 

include additional uses for which HFC– 

134a is acceptable, subject to use 

conditions. These uses include certain 

aerosols used for testing smoke detector 

sensitivity and ‘‘emergency safety horns 

exclusively used for marine emergency 

situations and/or industrial emergencies 

and evacuations.’’ Reasons cited include 

allowing time for developing and 

approving new smoke detector 

sensitivity testing equipment and the 

need for nonflammability because 

emergency safety horns function where 

flames or other ignition sources are 

present. An environmental group states 

that it disagrees with comments that 

request continued use of HFC–134a in 

freeze sprays, tissue freezes, portable 

safety horns and personal defense 

sprays, as these applications can use 

other lower-GWP alternatives such as 

dimethyl ether, HFO–1234ze(E), and 

CO2. 

Response: For aerosols used for smoke 

detector sensitivity testing, EPA 

received information from a 

manufacturer of such products that this 

use requires redesign of equipment for 

testing smoke detectors, and not just 

reformulation of the aerosol. This 

information indicates that the 

equipment for such testing is designed 

based on the vapor pressure of HFC– 

134a and would not work with another 

propellant. Therefore, we are adding 

aerosols for sensitivity testing of smoke 

detectors to the list of use conditions. 

For portable safety horns, personal 

defense sprays, and freeze sprays for 

wastes (as opposed to electronic freeze 

sprays), there are other alternatives that 

are available or potentially available 

that reduce overall risk to human health 

and the environment. Products using 

HFO–1234ze(E) already exist or are in 

development for these uses. EPA 

received no information indicating that 

alternatives other than HFC–125, HFC– 

134a or HFC–227ea, or blends thereof, 

cannot be safely used in tissue freeze 

sprays. 

Comment: ITW Polymers Sealants 

requested that EPA either clarify that 

canister adhesives and sealants are not 

considered to be aerosols, or else that 

EPA add this use to the list of use 

conditions for HFC–134a. ITW Polymers 

Sealants provided information 

indicating that flammability of the 

propellant is of concern in the 

fabrication facilities with this use, and 

that use of hydrocarbon propellants 

would exceed VOC limits set for these 

products in many areas of the country. 

The commenter also indicated that 

HFO–1234ze(E), CO2, and N2, the only 

other propellants that would address 

flammability concerns for this use 

besides HFC–134a, have vapor pressures 

outside of the range that would provide 

sufficient performance. In the absence of 

sufficient vapor pressure, as with HFO– 

1234ze(E), the commenter claims that 

there will be performance problems 

such as lower bond strength or bumps 

and mounds in furniture surfaces; with 

the higher pressure propellants N2 and 

CO2, the commenter states that these 

will result in exceeding Department of 

Transportation internal pressure limits 

at elevated temperatures. 

Response: We do consider canister 

adhesives and sealants to be aerosols 

because they are pressurized containers 

and they use a propellant, as opposed to 

solely mechanical means, to expel the 

other ingredients of the formulation 

from the container. The information 

provided by the commenter on vapor 

pressure concerns is plausible, based on 

the relative vapor pressures of the 

different propellants. It is possible for 

fabrication facilities to use flammable 

adhesives and propellants safely, but it 

would require time to make the 

necessary upgrades to address these 

risks. It is also of concern that in VOC 

nonattainment areas, large amounts of 

hydrocarbons in these large canister 

adhesive containers would cause 

canister adhesives and sealants to 

exceed their VOC limits. Of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42887 

available propellant options that are not 

VOC or are exempted from the 

definition of VOC—HFC–134a, HFO– 

1234ze(E), CO2, and N2—to date, only 

HFC–134a has been shown to be in a 

pressure range that provides sufficient 

performance. Thus, it is likely that 

HFC–134a is the only available 

propellant for canister adhesives and 

sealants in many areas of the country. 

Therefore, this final rule adds adhesives 

and sealants in large canisters to the list 

of uses where HFC–134a is acceptable, 

subject to use conditions. 

Comment: A number of members of 

the aerosol industry requested that EPA 

consider adding aerosols for use on 

energized electrical equipment as a use 

for which HFC–134a is acceptable, 

subject to use conditions. Specific 

products mentioned include dusters for 

use on live electric circuits, contact 

cleaners for energized circuits, mold 

cleaners, and electronic freeze sprays. 

Response: EPA agrees that, given the 

high temperatures and high electrical 

energy present on energized electrical 

equipment, it is necessary to retain the 

option of a propellant that remains 

nonflammable at high temperatures. As 

described elsewhere in the preamble, 

compressed gases such as CO2 and N2

may be nonflammable but are not 

appropriate in some situations, due to 

pressure drop-off and reactions with 

other formulation ingredients. HFO– 

1234ze(E) is nonflammable in many 

situations, but it is not yet clear if it 

remains nonflammable in the presence 

of the high temperatures and high 

electrical energy in the specific uses 

mentioned by the commenters. If 

additional information becomes 

available showing that HFO–1234ze(E) 

remains nonflammable in such 

situations, we may revisit this decision 

in the future. In this final rule, we are 

adding mold cleaners, electronic freeze 

sprays, and dusters for use on energized 

electrical circuits to the list of aerosol 

products that may continue to use HFC– 

134a under the use conditions. We 

consider electrical contact cleaners for 

energized electrical equipment to be 

part of the use ‘‘cleaning products for 

removal of grease, flux and other soils 

from electrical equipment or 

electronics’’ and therefore covered by 

the use condition. 

Comment: MicroCare, a company 

specializing in cleaning, and Traulsen, a 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, request that 

refrigeration system flushes be added to 

the use condition specifying which enduses may still use HFC–134a. They 

explain that after removing refrigerant 

and flushing any oils or particulates left, 

the lines are brazed, soldered or welded 

back together at high temperatures well 

above the level at which HFO–1234ze(E) 

becomes flammable (e.g., above 1,995 

°C). 

CSPA stated that it should be clarified 

that ‘‘Cleaning products for removal of 

grease, flux, and other soils from 

electrical equipment or electronics’’ 

includes cleaners for refrigeration coils 

because of similar requirements for 

nonflammability. NAA stated that its 

members did not reach consensus on 

whether refrigerant flushes should be 

added to the acceptable list. This 

commenter states that it is common 

practice in the industry to remove 

flushing agents from lines and blowing 

them dry with nitrogen or compressed 

air after flushing, which eliminates risks 

posed by welding lines after flushing. 

Response: Because of the extremely 

high temperatures cited by MicroCare 

and Traulsen that may be present in a 

refrigerant line after flushing, EPA 

agrees that it is necessary to have a 

nonflammable propellant available for 

refrigerant flushes. The term ‘‘refrigerant 

flushes’’ also refers to cleaners for 

refrigerant coils. Although nitrogen can 

be used to purge refrigerant lines to 

remove refrigerant flushes prior to 

brazing or welding, it is not clear that 

this is a universal practice in the 

industry. Therefore, we are adding 

refrigerant flushes to the use condition 

specifying uses that may continue to use 

HFC–134a. 

Comment: SAE International and 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(AAM) commented that there are 

aerosol products available for servicing 

MVAC systems which contain additives 

in a can propelled by HFC–134a which 

the commenters believe should be 

acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

The commenters stated that the use of 

propellants other than HFC–134a could 

cause technical problems, could 

contaminate refrigerant so that EPAapproved Recovery, Recycling and 

Recharging (RRR) equipment cannot be 

used, or could be incompatible with 

SAE standards if the propellant goes 

into the MVAC systems. 

Response: EPA considers an aerosol 

can containing HFC–134a used to 

recharge an MVAC system to fall under 

the MVAC end-use and not the aerosol 

propellant end-use. Under the SNAP 

lists for the MVAC end-use, HFC–134a 

remains an acceptable substitute for 

servicing existing systems. An aerosol 

can containing HFC–134a refrigerant 

and oil or leak sealant, which is used to 

inject oil or repair leaks and to then 

recharge MVAC systems, would also fit 

in the MVAC end-use and remains 

acceptable for use on existing systems. 

These cans must have the unique 

fittings required by SNAP for HFC–134a 

as a motor vehicle air conditioner 

refrigerant. However, an aerosol can 

primarily intended to inject additives, 

e.g., dye, rather than to add HFC–134a 

as a refrigerant would be considered an 

aerosol, and use of HFC–134a as the 

propellant would not be allowed as of 

July 20, 2016, under this final rule. We 

do not consider this type of product to 

fit under the commenter’s request for 

products for servicing. Further, we 

disagree with the commenter that it is 

necessary to have a propellant that is 

the same as the refrigerant used in 

MVAC. We note that in the future, 

HFO–1234yf or other refrigerant 

substitutes will be used as a refrigerant 

in many vehicles; thus, in the future, 

automotive products will need to be 

formulated to include propellants other 

than HFC–134a, as well as formulated 

with propellants that are different from 

the refrigerant used in the MVAC 

system. 

Comment: DuPont recommended that 

EPA establish use conditions rather than 

narrowed use limits in implementing 

any changes of status for HFCs used in 

aerosols. The commenter stated that 

acceptable conditions of use are a 

relatively straightforward, selfimplementing regulatory approach that 

would limit the burden on aerosol 

companies, most of which are small 

businesses, in complying with the 

changed status. DuPont commented that 

narrowed use limits are a much more 

administratively intensive approach for 

both the Agency and the regulated 

community, and would impose 

significant burdens on these small 

businesses, as well as on EPA. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that narrowed use limits are 

more administratively burdensome. We 

are establishing use conditions in the 

final rule. 

(d) HFC Consumption and Climate 

Impact of Aerosols 

Comment: DuPont, Mexichem and the 

Consumer Specialty Products 

Association (CSPA) commented on the 

relatively small contribution of nonmedical aerosols to HFC consumption, 

stating that it represents between 1 and 

2% of all HFC consumption. A producer 

of tire inflators noted that tire inflators 

make up less than 0.2% of the current 

use of HFC–134a. Mexichem stated that 

the continued availability of HFC–134a 

for the small businesses and consumers 

that produce/rely on aerosol products, 

will make no appreciable difference to 

EPA’s goal of reducing GHG emissions, 

because aerosol products account for 

only five percent of total HFC 

consumption, and of that portion, only 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

31Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 

32 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU 

MAC Directive). This document is accessible at: 

eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

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

33Nelson, 2013. Gabe Nelson. Automakers’ 

switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA 

credits, European mandate. Automotive News. 

Available online at www.autonews.com/article/

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

24% serve non-medical purposes. This 

commenter suggested that EPA should 

accommodate these uses through 

exemptions or a delay in the ‘‘delisting’’ of HFC–134a. In contrast, 

Honeywell mentions that its new 

technologies in the aerosol sector could 

reduce GHG emissions by more than 6 

MMTCO2eq per year in 2016. 

Response: EPA agrees that the aerosol 

sector comprises a small portion of the 

total consumption of HFCs. However, 

we disagree that we should not change 

the status of HFCs for the aerosol 

propellant end-use because GHG 

emissions from that end-use are small. 

We note that any given end-use within 

the 50-some SNAP end-uses may be 

relatively small compared to the whole. 

Section 612(c) of the CAA directs EPA 

to publish lists of substitutes prohibited 

for specific uses and safe alternatives for 

specific uses. Thus, we make our 

decision by considering the overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

posed by the available or potentially 

available substitutes within each enduse, rather than comparing risks in 

different end-uses to each other. We 

disagree with the commenter’s 

suggestion that EPA provide a later 

change of status date for aerosol uses 

because of their relatively low GHG 

emissions. Instead, EPA considers the 

time in which alternatives are available 

for use, which involves the feasibility of 

implementing alternatives with lower 

overall impacts on human health and 

the environment. EPA appreciates the 

information provided by one commenter 

that indicates that for the aerosol sector, 

the change in status for HFC–134a, 

HFC–227ea, and HFC–125 could reduce 

GHG emissions by more than 6 

MMTCO2eq per year. 

(e) Small Business Impacts 

Comment: Falcon Safety Products 

comments that they transitioned from 

HCFCs to HFCs in 1993, after which it 

began transitioning from HFC–134a 

(with a GWP of 1,430) to HFC–152a 

(with a GWP of 124) in compressed gas 

dusters, at a significant cost to its 

company, in terms of retooling and 

installing new gas tanks and filing lines. 

Falcon Safety Products supports the 

EPA’s high-GWP emissions reduction 

efforts, but believes that they should not 

negatively impact small businesses or 

have a detrimental impact on the safety, 

affordability, or efficacy of its product 

categories. Falcon Safety Products 

comments that transitioning to HFO– 

1234ze(E) is very expensive for small 

businesses like itself, in terms of 

changing tanks, filling lines, and 

revising labels and marketing materials. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a change in status for 

HFC–152a in aerosols. See preamble 

section V.A.3 for EPA’s status changes 

for HFCs in the aerosols sector, and 

supporting document Economic Impact 

Screening Analysis for Regulatory 

Options to Change Listing Status of 

High-GWP Alternatives (ICF, 2014f; ICF, 

2015b). 

(f) Imports 

Comment: CSPA expressed concern 

about noncomplying products from 

offshore, which they state has been a 

large problem in the past. CSPA stated 

that for retail products, more time is 

needed to adjust contracts and to work 

with EPA to ensure that CSPA member 

complying products are not displaced 

by non-complying products from 

offshore. 

Response: For aerosol products, the 

rule applies to imported products as 

well as to manufacture of products in 

the United States. By providing a full 

year after finalization of the rule before 

a change of status is required for the 

HFCs covered by this action known to 

be in current use for aerosol product 

manufacture, there is now additional 

time to adjust contracts and work with 

retailers. EPA welcomes the suggestion 

that we should work together with the 

aerosol industry and retailers to avoid 

sale of non-complying products that 

might be imported. 

B. MVAC Systems for Newly 

Manufactured Light-Duty Motor 

Vehicles 

1. Background 

MVAC systems cool passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks, buses, and rail 

vehicles. CFC–12 was the refrigerant 

historically used in the manufacture of 

MVAC systems. HFC–134a, along with a 

number of other substitutes, was found 

acceptable for use in light-duty vehicles 

in 1994 and at the same time, CFC–12 

was being phased out of production. By 

the mid-1990s, use of CFC–12 in 

manufacturing new light-duty vehicles 

ceased in the United States and 

manufacturers of light-duty vehicles 

uniformly decided to adopt HFC–134a 

for use in MVAC. Today, while MVAC 

systems in some older vehicles may still 

be using CFC–12, HFC–134a remains 

the dominant refrigerant used in lightduty vehicles worldwide. More recently, 

additional alternatives for MVAC have 

been listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions,31 including HFO–1234yf, 

HFC–152a, and carbon dioxide (CO2 or 

R–744). Manufacturers are currently 

manufacturing or are actively 

developing light-duty models using 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and CO2. The 

development of MVAC systems using 

lower-GWP refrigerants has been 

encouraged by MVAC refrigerant 

requirements in Europe, where the 

European Union Directive on Mobile 

Air Conditioning (MAC Directive) 

mandates transition to a refrigerant with 

a GWP below 150 by January 1, 2017,32

and in the United States by the 

availability of credits under the LightDuty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule, 

described in further detail below. 

Neither HFC–134a nor any of the 

refrigerants listed more recently is 

ozone-depleting. HFO–1234yf, HFC– 

152a, and CO2 have much lower GWPs 

than HFC–134a. HFO–1234yf has a 

GWP of 4, HFC–152a has a GWP of 124, 

and CO2 (by definition) has a GWP of 1 

while HFC–134a has a GWP of 1,430. 

HFC–134a and CO2 are nonflammable; 

HFO–1234yf and HFC–152a are 

flammable. All of the gaseous 

refrigerants can cause asphyxiation at 

high concentrations. CO2 concentrations 

that could potentially result from 

refrigerant leaks into the passenger 

compartment without mitigation 

measures could reduce a driver’s 

attentiveness and performance. HFC– 

134a and the three lower-GWP 

alternatives are exempt from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the national 

ambient air quality standards. As 

discussed in the NPRM, EPA has 

created use conditions for HFC–134a, 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and CO2 that 

establish unique fittings and labeling 

requirements, and where appropriate, 

mitigate flammability and toxicity risks. 

HFO–1234yf is being used in cars on 

the road today in the United States. At 

the time of the proposal for this rule, 

EPA was aware that HFO–1234yf was in 

use in MVAC systems in approximately 

nine 33 models in the United States 

produced by several manufacturers of 

light-duty vehicles. EPA expects, and 

several commenters indicated that, 

additional models have or will be 

introduced using HFO–1234yf systems 

over the next several years. The results 

of a 2014 industry survey submitted by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42889 

34EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0207 and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0113. 

35EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0170. 

36EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0077. 

37 Daimler, 2014. 

38Andersen et al., 2015. ‘‘Secondary Loop Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL–MACs). 

Using Low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) 

Refrigerants in Leak-Tight Systems In Climates with 

High Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid Cooling 

Seasons. Building on the Previous Success of 

Delphi, Fiat, General Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE 

Cooperative Research Projects, And Other 

Engineering Groups.’’ MACS Briefing, 2015. 

39Because the MVAC system used is so closely 

related to vehicle design, we are using model years 

and not calendar years. 

AAM and the Association of Global 

Automakers (Global Automakers) as a 

public comment to this rule found that 

automobile manufacturers who 

responded to the survey had plans in 

place to transition 90% of light-duty 

models sold in the United States by or 

before MY 2021.34 According to 

comments submitted by Honeywell, 

there are approximately 28 different 

automobile brands selling around 60 

different models designed to use HFO– 

1234yf globally.35 DuPont stated that 

more than 7 million vehicles using 

HFO–1234yf are estimated to be on the 

road by the end of 2015 globally, and in 

addition to infrastructure being in place 

at vehicle assembly plants, equipment 

suppliers are already producing the 

under hood, in factory, and service 

equipment.36

While EPA was aware in the 1990s 

that CO2 might be a feasible alternative 

in this application, the state of research 

and development indicated that it was 

not yet available because a design had 

not yet been developed that would 

allow safe use in MVAC systems in 

light-duty vehicles. More than 20 years 

later, EPA is still not aware of current 

commercial use of CO2 in MVAC 

systems. However, significant research 

and development are occurring in order 

to design a system that will ensure CO2

can be used safely as an MVAC 

refrigerant. At least one global 

manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has 

announced its intention to 

commercialize vehicles that use CO2 as 

the MVAC refrigerant in the next five 

years, and perhaps as early as 2016.37

In 2008, EPA found HFC–152a 

acceptable subject to use conditions. 

MVAC systems using HFC–152a have 

not been commercialized to date; 

however, EPA is aware of a 

demonstration project in India with a 

major Indian motor vehicle 

manufacturer considering HFC–152a in 

secondary loop MVAC systems.38

In addition to the use and 

development of HFO–1234yf, HFC– 

152a, and CO2 MVAC systems, EPA is 

aware of ongoing research and 

development which could ultimately 

result in future listings of additional 

alternatives for light-duty MVAC 

systems. For example, since the 

publication of the proposed rule, the 

SNAP program received a new 

submission for another low-GWP 

alternative that is a blend with a GWP 

below 150. 

There are also several blend 

refrigerants that have been listed as 

acceptable or acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, since 1994, but that have 

never been developed for use in MVAC 

or used in manufacture of new vehicles. 

Today’s action will change the status of 

these refrigerant blends to unacceptable 

as of MY 2017 for use in newly 

manufactured light-duty vehicles. These 

substitutes include HFC blends SP34E 

and R–426A (also known as RS-24) with 

GWPs of 1,380 and 1,508, respectively, 

and the HCFC blends, R–416A (also 

known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC 

FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also known as 

HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B 

(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), 

HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free 

Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC 

Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP), 

with GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 

and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. 

For simplicity, we refer to these 

substitutes as ‘‘the refrigerant blends’’ in 

the following discussion. 

As noted above, none of these are 

currently used by the original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) nor 

are we aware that any models are being 

developed for use with these 

substitutes. All of these refrigerant 

blends have GWPs that are significantly 

higher than the GWPs for HFO–1234yf, 

HFC–152a, and CO2 and the blends 

containing HCFCs have ODPs ranging 

from 0.012 to 0.056. As discussed, there 

are alternatives with lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

that are available for this use. 

2. What is EPA finalizing regarding 

MVAC systems for newly manufactured 

light-duty motor vehicles? 

The change of status determinations 

for MVAC are summarized in the 

following table: 

TABLE 3—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR MVAC 

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only).

HFC–134a ........................................................ Unacceptable as of Model Year (MY) 2021, 

except where allowed under a narrowed 

use limit through MY 2025. Acceptable, 

subject to narrowed use limits, for vehicles 

exported to countries with insufficient servicing infrastructure to support other alternatives, for MY 2021 through MY 2025; Unacceptable for all newly manufactured vehicles as of MY 2026. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and light-duty trucks only).

R–406A, R–414A (HCFC Blend Xi, GHG–X4), 

R–414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC 

Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– 

X5, HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG-HP), R– 

416A (FRIGC FR–12, HCFC Blend Beta), 

SP34E, R–426A (RS–24, new formulation).

Unacceptable as of MY 2017. 

(a) HFC–134a 

In the August 6, 2014, proposal, EPA 

proposed to change the listing status of 

HFC–134a from acceptable to 

unacceptable for use in air conditioning 

systems in newly manufactured 

passenger cars and light-duty trucks 

beginning in MY 2021.39 This final 

action adopts the proposed approach, 

but with one exception. Specifically, we 

are including a narrowed use limit for 

HFC–134a in MVAC systems of newly 

manufactured passenger cars and lightduty trucks destined for use in countries 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

40 77 FR 62624, 62807–810 (October 15, 2012); 

see also 75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010) 

(discussing the same issue for MY 2012–2016 lightduty vehicles) 

41See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for 

a more detailed discussion of this practice. 

42As previously noted, HFO–1234yf, CO2 and 

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

conditions and many of the use conditions address 

the design of systems to account for flammability 

or exposure. 

43 77 FR 62720. 

44 Global Automakers, in their comments on the 

NPRM, stated, ‘‘These major model re-designs 

typically occur every five or six model years, and 

are staggered year-by-year so that the 

manufacturer’s full product line is refreshed over 

time rather than all at once. Because of the need to 

lock in suppliers to support production well in 

advance, vehicle designs are usually locked in 

about two years before the model year.’’ EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198–0207. 

45As explained in more detail in the responses 

to comments, under the SNAP criteria for review in 

40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost information that 

EPA considers as part of its SNAP review is the 

‘‘cost and availability of the substitute.’’ 

that do not have infrastructure in place 

for servicing with other acceptable 

refrigerants. This narrowed use limit 

will be in place through MY 2025. 

This change of status applies to 

MVAC systems for passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks as defined at 40 CFR 

86.1803–01, referred to jointly in this 

FRM as light-duty vehicles. As 

discussed in the NPRM and above, three 

alternatives currently on the SNAP list 

of substitutes that are acceptable, 

subject to use conditions—HFC–152a, 

CO2, and HFO–1234yf—are in use or 

under various stages of development 

and have significantly lower GWPs than 

HFC–134a. Use conditions for these 

substitutes mitigate flammability and 

toxicity risks, as relevant, and thus for 

the other factors EPA evaluates, there 

was not an appreciable difference in 

risk. Because HFC–134a has a 

significantly higher GWP than HFC– 

152a, CO2, and HFO–1234yf, and 

because the use conditions for these 

three refrigerants ensure that other risks 

are not appreciably higher than for 

HFC–134a, we are listing HFC–134a as 

unacceptable for use in MVAC systems 

in new light-duty vehicles in MY 2021. 

Without the use conditions these 

other substitutes do not pose overall 

lower risk than HFC–134a. Thus, in 

deciding when the unacceptability 

determination should apply, we 

considered when it would be feasible 

for manufacturers to develop systems 

meeting the use conditions. We 

proposed MY 2021 while also 

requesting comment on MY 2017, MY 

2019 and MYs later than 2021. As 

explained in the NPRM, EPA considers 

MY 2021 the date by which automobile 

manufacturers will be able to redesign 

all vehicle models (including design of 

the MVAC systems) for use with a 

lower-GWP alternative, consistent with 

the use conditions. 

EPA previously considered the model 

year by which manufacturers of lightduty vehicles would be able to 

transition away from use of HFC–134a 

in support of the greenhouse gas and 

fuel economy standards for MY 2017– 

2025 light-duty vehicles issued jointly 

by EPA and NHTSA on August 28, 

2012.40 As part of that rulemaking, EPA 

established the availability of credits for 

the use of alternative refrigerants with 

lower GWPs than that of HFC–134a 

towards meeting the LD GHG standards. 

For today’s action, EPA relied on the 

analysis conducted in support of the LD 

GHG standards for MYs 2017–2025. The 

analysis considered the practices used 

by the automobile manufacturing 

industry in introducing new 

technologies into their vehicles through 

manufacturing redesign changes and 

refresh cycles. For each vehicle model, 

manufacturers establish a product 

development cycle over which they 

plan any significant technological 

changes or ‘‘redesigns’’ to that vehicle. 

Between the major redesign model 

years, they may make only minor 

‘‘refresh’’ changes.41 At any point in 

time, a manufacturer may have some 

vehicles at or approaching a major 

redesign point and others that are earlier 

in their product cycle. 

In developing the LD GHG standards, 

EPA assumed that the transition to 

alternative refrigerants would generally 

need to occur during manufacturer 

model redesigns because of changes to 

the system design that are needed to 

allow the safe use of these alternatives 

consistent with the regulatory use 

conditions.42 EPA used the overall 

typical industry redesign cycle of five 

model years to estimate how the 

expected industry-wide transition to 

new refrigerants might occur. Thus, EPA 

projected that the industry, in order to 

safely make use of the credits offered for 

use of lower-GWP refrigerants, would 

fully transition to these refrigerants over 

the time between MY 2017 and MY 

2021, beginning with 20 percent 

transition in MY 2017, to be followed by 

a 20 percent increase in substitution in 

each subsequent model year, completing 

transition in MY 2021.43 EPA continues 

to rely on the projections made in 

support of the LD GHG Rule as well as 

all other information currently available 

to the Agency to support the decision in 

this action that MY 2021 is the MY by 

which it will be feasible for 

manufacturers to safely, but 

expeditiously, transition MVAC systems 

for all light-duty vehicle models. 

EPA proposed to modify the listing of 

HFC–134a to unacceptable as of MY 

2021 for light-duty vehicles, and sought 

comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs 

later than 2021. Some commenters 

argued that full transition cannot occur 

until after MY 2021 because a limited 

number of models do not currently have 

plans in place to transition by MY 2021. 

For these models, commenters claimed 

that two full design cycles, which could 

take 10 years, will be necessary in order 

to transition. Commenters also provided 

information that the vehicle redesign is 

not ‘‘locked-in’’ until two years before 

the model year. EPA understands that 

because MY 2016 vehicles are being 

produced in the 2015 calendar year, this 

means most manufacturers have 

‘‘locked-in’’ their planned product 

designs for MY 2016 and MY 2017, or 

potentially even out to MY 2018.44 EPA 

did not receive information on why 

manufacturers cannot redesign models 

that are not yet locked-in or why MVAC 

system redesign cannot occur during a 

product refresh for those models that are 

locked-in. According to the 2014 survey 

of the automobile industry, 

manufacturers who participated in the 

study indicated that they already expect 

to have transitioned 90% of the fleet by 

MY 2021. We did not receive any 

information indicating it was not 

technically feasible to also transition the 

remaining 10% of models by MY 2021. 

EPA expressly requested specific 

information supporting claims that a 

transition by MY 2021 would not be 

technically feasible because specific 

model vehicles cannot be redesigned to 

safely use alternative refrigerants by MY 

2021. No such information was 

forthcoming. Although one 

manufacturer did provide information 

on the increase in cost to transition for 

a particular type of vehicle that was 

originally not planned for a refrigerant 

change by MY 2021,45 commenters did 

not submit specific information, 

confidential or otherwise, that showed it 

would not be technically feasible for 

any specific model vehicles to adjust 

their redesign cycle, switch refrigerants 

mid-cycle, or switch during a refresh. 

After thoroughly reviewing all of the 

information in the possession of the 

Agency, EPA did not find a technical 

basis for extending the change of status 

date beyond MY 2021. We believe the 

information in the record supports a 

conclusion that it is feasible for vehicles 

and the associated MVAC systems to be 

redesigned to safely use alternative 

refrigerants by MY 2021. 

EPA also received comments on this 

rule requesting an earlier change of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42891 

46EPA is also clarifying that thermostatic 

expansion valves (TXVs) are not impacted by 

today’s action. 

47See also 77 FR 62807. 

status date based on the availability of 

alternative refrigerants and the fact that 

transition is already occurring in the 

United States and globally. The 

available information indicated that 

many of the models that have already 

transitioned are being sold in Europe 

rather than in the United States. There 

is no information showing that it is 

technically feasible for all or most 

models to transition to alternatives 

safely by MY 2017 or MY 2019, which 

begin in 2016 and 2018 respectively. As 

discussed below in the responses to 

comments, MY 2021 is the earliest year 

that we find provides sufficient time to 

transition refrigerant during vehicle 

redesign cycles or to plan a mid-cycle 

transition to alternatives that ensures 

safety through compliance with SNAP 

use conditions. 

We also considered the supply of the 

alternative refrigerants in determining 

when alternatives would be available. 

At the time the light-duty GHG rule was 

promulgated, there was a concern about 

the potential supply of HFO–1234yf. 

Some commenters indicated that supply 

is still a concern, while others, 

including two producers of HFO– 

1234yf, commented that there will be 

sufficient supply. Moreover, some 

automotive manufacturers are 

developing systems that can safely use 

other substitutes, including CO2, for 

which there is not a supply concern for 

the refrigerant. If some global light-duty 

motor vehicle manufacturers use CO2 or 

another acceptable alternative, 

additional volumes of HFO–1234yf that 

would have been used by those 

manufacturers will then become 

available. Based on all of the 

information before the Agency, EPA 

believes production plans for the 

refrigerants are in place to make 

available sufficient supply no later than 

MY 2021 to meet current and projected 

demand domestically as well as abroad, 

including, but not limited to, the EU. 

Based on information the Agency 

possessed at the time of the proposal 

and additional information submitted 

during the comment period regarding 

the technical feasibility of transitioning 

the fleet of light-duty vehicles and 

refrigerant supply, we conclude that MY 

2021 represents the time by which other 

alternative refrigerants that pose less 

overall risk than HFC–134a can be used 

in all light-duty vehicle models 

consistent with the use conditions. 

Thus, MY 2021 is the time at which 

those alternative refrigerants will be 

‘‘available’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 612(c)(2). 

(b) Refrigerant Blends 

In today’s action, EPA is also 

finalizing changes to the listing status of 

SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R–406A, R– 

414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or 

GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as HCFC 

Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta 

(also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, 

GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda 

(also known as GHG–HP) from 

acceptable to unacceptable for use in 

newly manufactured light-duty motor 

vehicles beginning in MY 2017, as 

proposed. The GWPs of HFC–152a, 

HFO–1234yf, and CO2 are significantly 

lower than those of the refrigerant 

blends and all but two of these blends 

have ODPs, whereas HFC–152a, HFO– 

1234yf, and CO2 do not. Moreover, if 

used consistent with the established use 

conditions, the three lower-GWP 

refrigerants do not pose greater overall 

risk than any of the refrigerant blends. 

At the time of the proposal, EPA was 

not aware of current or projected future 

use of these refrigerant blends in any 

MVAC systems in newly manufactured 

light-duty vehicles. We did not receive 

any comments providing information 

suggesting current or projected use of 

these refrigerant blends in any newlymanufactured light-duty MVAC systems 

and received several comments 

supporting this aspect of the proposal. 

EPA is changing the listing status for the 

refrigerant blends to unacceptable for 

use in new light-duty vehicles as of MY 

2017, the next model year in production 

after this rule is issued. 

3. MVAC Servicing 

EPA did not propose and is not 

making any changes that would alter the 

ability to service existing motor vehicles 

designed to use HFC–134a or a 

refrigerant blend.46

MVAC systems designed to use lowerGWP substitutes and installed in 

vehicles will need to be serviced. Some 

stakeholders and commenters have 

expressed a concern that the price 

differential between HFO–1234yf and 

HFC–134a provides an economic 

incentive to replace HFO–1234yf with 

HFC–134a during servicing.47 HFC– 

134a is listed, and will remain listed, as 

an acceptable refrigerant for retrofit of 

existing systems designed to use CFC– 

12, but because of the use restrictions 

for refrigerants listed as acceptable, it 

cannot be used as a retrofit for MVAC 

systems using other alternatives. 

Specifically, the SNAP listings for all 

MVAC refrigerants require the use of 

unique fittings for each alternative 

refrigerant. These fittings are found at 

attachment points on the car itself, on 

all recovery and recycling equipment, 

on can taps and other charging 

equipment, and on all refrigerant 

containers. The purpose of these fittings 

is to prevent cross-contamination. Using 

an adapter or deliberately modifying a 

fitting to use a different refrigerant is a 

violation of these use conditions. If used 

properly, the unique fittings will not 

allow for the introduction of HFC–134a 

refrigerant to an HFO–1234yf system. 

Furthermore, the SNAP regulations 

prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to 

‘top-off’ a system that uses another 

refrigerant and the SNAP use conditions 

for refrigerants in this end-use require 

that the original refrigerant be 

recovered, in accordance with 

regulations issued under section 609 of 

the CAA, prior to charging with a 

substitute (40 CFR 82.34). Thus, the 

SNAP use conditions prohibit adding a 

new refrigerant to the system without 

first recovering the refrigerant already in 

the system. 

For vehicles for which the 

manufacturer counts air conditioning 

credits toward its LD GHG compliance, 

the MVAC systems (or elements of those 

systems) are considered emissionrelated components as defined in 40 

CFR 86.1803. This designation includes 

provisions for emission-related 

warranty, requirements that they 

operate properly for the specified useful 

life, as well as tampering restrictions. 

For example, if a manufacturer claims 

air conditioning credits for an MVAC 

system that uses a lower-GWP 

refrigerant on a particular vehicle as 

part of the LD GHG program, removing 

and replacing that refrigerant with any 

other refrigerant that has a higher GWP, 

including HFC–134a, would be 

considered tampering with an emissionrelated component under Title II of the 

CAA. 

4. Would this action affect EPA’s LD 

GHG Rule? 

In their comments, AAM stated that 

‘‘EPA should state clearly and 

unequivocally in the final rule that EPA 

is committed to continuing the A/C 

credits through MY 2025 and beyond.’’ 

Global Automakers made a similar 

request. EPA in fact stated in the NPRM, 

and reiterates here, that nothing in this 

final rule changes the regulations 

establishing the availability of air 

conditioning refrigerant credits under 

the GHG standards for MY 2017–2025, 

found at 40 CFR 86.1865–12 and 1867– 

12. Those standards and credits are 

established by rule and EPA did not 

reopen that rule in this proceeding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42892 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

48See 77 FR 62804–809. 

49EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0207 and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0113 

50Nelson, 2013. 

51 77 FR 62720. 

Thus, manufacturers can generate 

credits from use of lower-GWP 

alternative refrigerants through MY 

2025, and the ability to generate and use 

those credits towards compliance with 

the LD GHG standards will not change 

under this final rule. 48 We do note 

further, however, that the LD GHG 

standards do not require any specific 

means of compliance, so that 

manufacturers have the flexibility to 

either switch refrigerants or to comply 

with the standards by other means. If a 

manufacturer chooses to comply with 

the LD GHG standard by a strategy not 

involving refrigerant substitution, for 

MY 2021 and later vehicles, this final 

rule would still require the 

manufacturer to use refrigerant other 

than HFC–134a. 

5. How will the change of status apply 

to exports of MVAC systems? 

(a) SNAP Interpretation 

Under 40 CFR 82.174, no person may 

introduce a refrigerant substitute into 

interstate commerce without notifying 

EPA 90 days in advance. Our 

longstanding interpretation of this 

regulatory provision is that the 

notification requirement applies to 

products manufactured in the United 

States and exported. EPA has defined 

interstate commerce in our labeling 

regulations at 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: ‘‘The 

distribution or transportation of any 

product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, 

and another state, territory, possession 

or the District of Columbia, or the sale, 

use or manufacture of any product in 

more than one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia. 

The entry points for which the product 

is introduced into interstate commerce 

are the release of a product from the 

facility in which the product was 

manufactured, the entry into a 

warehouse from which the domestic 

manufacturer releases the product for 

sale or distribution, and at the site of 

United States Customs clearance.’’ 

While this definition appears in EPA’s 

labeling regulations, EPA’s practice is to 

use it for purposes of the SNAP program 

as well. See e.g., 76 FR 78846, December 

20, 2011 (‘‘This definition applies to any 

appliances produced in the United 

States, including appliances that will be 

exported.’’) 

In addition, under the SNAP 

regulations EPA regulates ‘‘use’’ in the 

United States and ‘‘use’’ is defined at 40 

CFR 82.172 to include ‘‘use in a 

manufacturing process or product, in 

consumption by the end user, or in 

intermediate uses, such as formulation 

or packaging for other subsequent uses.’’ 

Charging a MVAC system with 

refrigerant during the manufacturing of 

a vehicle in the United States is 

considered a ‘‘use’’ under the SNAP 

program. This is consistent with our 

statement in the initial SNAP rule that 

‘‘Substitutes manufactured within the 

U.S. exclusively for export are subject to 

SNAP since the definition of use in the 

rule includes use in the manufacturing 

process, which occurs within the United 

States.’’ (59 FR 13052; March 18, 1994) 

(b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC 

Based on comments received, we 

understand that certain countries to 

which vehicles are exported do not, and 

may not for some period of time, have 

in place the infrastructure for servicing 

MVAC systems with flammable 

refrigerants. Because this raises 

concerns with the safe usage of HFC– 

152a and HFO–1234yf, we have 

determined that there may be 

circumstances in which alternatives that 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment will not be 

available for MVAC systems in those 

vehicles by MY 2021. Therefore, EPA is 

providing a narrowed use limit for 

MVAC systems that applies to vehicles 

being exported to countries that do not 

have infrastructure to service vehicles 

containing the alternatives found to 

pose less overall risk. 

Under a narrowed use limit, the 

manufacturer needs to ascertain that 

these other alternatives are not 

technically feasible because of the lack 

of infrastructure for servicing with the 

alternative refrigerants and document 

the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 

82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to 

report the results of their investigations 

to EPA, but must retain the 

documentation in their files for the 

purpose of demonstrating compliance. 

Documentation should include 

descriptions of: 

• Products in which the substitute is 

needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected 

for the destined country; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives; and 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

Based on the comments received, EPA 

does not anticipate that a significant 

number of countries will lack the 

necessary infrastructure needed to 

service MVAC systems with the 

alternatives for which the equipment is 

designed by MY 2021. Also, based on 

the comments received, we do not 

believe that an extensive additional 

amount of time will be needed before 

the necessary infrastructure is in place. 

Therefore, under this final rule, the 

narrowed use limit will no longer be 

available beginning with MY 2026 

vehicles. 

6. How is EPA responding to comments 

concerning this end-use? 

(a) Timeline 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments on the current and projected 

pace of adoption of alternative 

refrigerants. Several commenters stated 

that transition to HFO–1234yf is already 

occurring. Honeywell commented that 

there are approximately 28 different 

automobile brands selling around 60 

different models designed to use HFO– 

1234yf globally and that more than a 

dozen models are being manufactured 

by U.S. manufacturers. Other 

commenters provided similar statistics. 

One of these commenters, DuPont, 

estimated that globally, more than 7 

million vehicles using alternatives other 

than HFC–134a will be on the road by 

the end of 2015. They also commented 

that in addition to infrastructure being 

in place at vehicle assembly plants, 

equipment suppliers are already 

producing the under-hood, in-factory, 

and service equipment necessary for the 

transition. 

AAM and Global Automakers 

‘‘conducted an industry survey to create 

a ‘non-confidential’ blinded summary of 

individual manufacturer refrigerant 

changeover plans.’’ 49 Ten automobile 

manufacturers, representing 85% of 

light-duty vehicles sold in the United 

States in MY 2013, submitted 

information. The survey found that out 

of 139 vehicle platforms, manufacturers 

currently plan to transition 90% of the 

models by MY 2021. 

Response: EPA recognizes some 

manufacturers have already transitioned 

to use of HFO–1234yf in a limited 

number of models. In the United States 

the transition began in a small number 

of MY 2013 vehicles, and increased in 

MY 2014 50 and MY 2015. As of the 

beginning of 2015, the U.S. fleet was 

continuing on a trajectory that we 

expect to achieve 20% adoption by MY 

2017, which aligns with EPA’s 

projection in the supporting documents 

for the light-duty GHG rule.51 While 

adoption is occurring in the United 

States, most of the estimated 7 million 

vehicles mentioned by DuPont are in 

Europe where the EU MAC Directive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42893 

52As noted elsewhere, we are creating a narrowed 

use limit for vehicles exported to countries without 

adequate facilities for servicing vehicles with the 

other acceptable alternatives. 

mandates transition to refrigerant with a 

GWP below 150 by January 1, 2017. 

The Agency recognizes and 

appreciates the factual information 

supplied by the commenters, including 

the information shared as a result of the 

2014 industry-led survey conducted by 

AAM and Global Automakers. EPA’s 

responses to the comments submitted by 

AAM and Global Automakers within the 

context of the survey are provided 

below. EPA relied on all of the 

information in our possession as we 

made our decision on the change of 

status for HFC–134a. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that the transition from CFC–12 to HFC– 

134a was achieved in about three to four 

model years and claimed that the 

transition from HFC–134a to lower-GWP 

alternatives could also happen in the 

same timeframe. 

Response: Regarding the comments 

suggesting that the current transition 

could occur in a similar period of time 

to the transition from CFC–12 to HFC– 

134a for MVAC, EPA disagrees because 

the system changes required for this 

transition are more extensive than those 

required for the transition from CFC–12 

to HFC–134a. It is EPA’s understanding, 

as confirmed by comments, such as 

those from the automobile associations, 

that many models will need to 

transition during a redesign cycle. 

EPA understands that many model 

types will require hardware changes 

that normally occur during a redesign, 

unlike the transition from CFC–12 to 

HFC–134a. HFO–1234yf has a slightly 

lower cooling efficiency than that of 

HFC–134a; offsetting this efficiency 

difference usually requires hardware 

changes, specifically the incorporation 

of an internal heat exchanger and 

potentially other system adjustments, 

which in some cases could result in 

changes to overall air conditioning 

system design and layout. CO2 MVAC 

systems will require significantly more 

hardware changes, which in many cases 

is expected to result in changes to the 

system design and layout. This 

transition contrasts with the case of the 

transition in the 1990s from CFC–12 to 

HFC–134a, where the systems did not 

require changes to the components of 

the MVAC system, besides the fittings, 

allowing manufacturers to switch many 

vehicles mid-cycle. Some models were 

already being manufactured using HFC– 

134a as early as 1992, with a significant 

proportion already being manufactured 

with HFC–134a by the time that EPA 

listed it as acceptable in the initial 

SNAP rule (59 FR 13044; March 18, 

1994). 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments related to the proposed time 

for changing the listing status of HFC– 

134a in MVAC. Several commenters 

support accelerating the proposed 

transition to earlier than MY 2021, and 

recommended implementation dates of 

MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019. Many cited 

the progression of transition in the EU, 

as well as the transition already seen in 

the United States as a result of EPA’s LD 

GHG Rule in support of an earlier 

transition timeframe. Honeywell, a 

producer of HFO–1234yf, commented 

‘‘that given manufacturers’ experience 

in the EU and United States there is 

already an understanding and capability 

to transition vehicles for U.S. car 

production’’ and they recommended a 

transition date of MY 2018. DuPont, 

another producer of HFO–1234yf, stated 

‘‘there are no technology, supply or 

engineering barriers to rapid transition’’ 

and recommended a transition date of 

MY 2019. EIA commented that there is 

no reason to delay the change in status 

and recommended MY 2017 as the 

implementation date. Two commenters, 

NRDC and IGSD, jointly commented 

that EPA should adopt MY 2017, a 

deadline that would be set based on the 

leaders in the industry that are already 

using safer chemicals, rather than the 

laggards. Effective Altruism at the 

University of Maryland commented that 

HFC–134a should be listed as 

unacceptable as of January 2017, and 

the California Air Resource Board 

(CARB) commented that MY 2018 is a 

reasonable timeframe for the 

unacceptable listing to apply. 

Some commenters stated that aligning 

with the EU transition by January 1, 

2017, will signal to the international 

community that the United States is 

taking steps to ‘‘promote the rapid 

deployment of climate-friendly and safe 

alternatives in motor vehicle air 

conditioning’’ as agreed to in the 

Leaders’ statement at the G–7 Summit in 

June 2014. Some commenters suggested 

an accelerated transition date is needed 

to achieve the President’s 

environmental goals, and would have a 

significant trickle-down effect in other 

markets around the world, specifically 

commenting that selecting MY 2017 

would encourage Japan to ‘‘set the same 

global motor vehicle air-conditioning 

phaseout schedule for HFC–134a.’’ Also, 

NRDC and IGSD commented that 

‘‘matching the MY 2017 European 

schedule is protecting against American 

automakers finding themselves 

unprepared when other markets close 

their doors to automobiles made with 

HFC–134a.’’ Some commenters stated 

that the transition can be achieved by an 

earlier date and that greater 

environmental benefits would be 

achieved with an earlier transition. 

These commenters stated that MY 2021 

would not provide benefits beyond 

those achieved under ‘‘business as 

usual.’’ 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters that suggested that an 

earlier transition year would result in 

greater environmental benefits to the 

extent that it would result in earlier 

reduction of use of HFC–134a in MVAC. 

However, in considering whether other 

listed alternatives are available that pose 

lower overall risk, EPA needs to 

consider whether there are any 

technical challenges that would prevent 

use of those alternatives consistent with 

the use conditions which are necessary 

to ensure that they pose lower risk than 

HFC–134a. EPA does not agree that a 

safe, smooth transition in compliance 

with the use conditions required for the 

lower-GWP alternatives can be made for 

all vehicles prior to MY 2021 in the 

United States. This is based on the need 

to transition most vehicles during 

redesign cycles, which in many cases 

requires hardware changes, as discussed 

above. EPA has also considered the 

potential benefits to aligning our 

domestic transition to the EU’s, in light 

of the fact that the transition to MVAC 

systems using one of the three 

alternatives began earlier than we 

predicted, and in light of the adequate 

supply of alternatives. Based on our 

current understanding and the 

information provided by commenters, 

especially the automobile 

manufacturers, the Agency has 

concluded that MY 2021 is the earliest 

date by which all model vehicles can be 

safely transitioned to lower-GWP 

alternatives in accordance with the use 

conditions. 

We note that even though we are 

establishing MY 2021 as the date by 

which HFC–134a will be 

unacceptable,52 EPA expects health and 

safety benefits will be realized sooner, 

as manufacturers will be designing new 

models each year using lower-GWP 

refrigerants for MVAC. The benefits 

analysis provided with the NPRM (EPA, 

2014) and the analysis associated with 

this final action (EPA, 2015b) use a 

‘‘business as usual’’ scenario that 

assumes a transition in refrigerant for 

MVAC will occur for vehicles 

manufactured and sold in the United 

States, in order to be consistent with the 

LD GHG Rule, and that assumes no 

regulatory action, and thus no benefits, 

under SNAP. However, our analysis of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the effects of a change of status for 

MVAC as of MY 2021 shows some 

benefits beyond the ‘‘business as usual’’ 

scenario, reflecting the use of lowerGWP refrigerants in exported vehicles. 

While not relevant to EPA’s decision 

regarding the appropriate date for 

changing the status of HFC–134a for use 

in MVAC, EPA also agrees its action to 

change the status of HFC–134a will send 

a valuable signal to the international 

community regarding the continued use 

of high-GWP alternatives. 

Comment: NRDC and IGSD suggested 

that EPA set a status change date as of 

MY 2017, and address any sub-sectors 

that have problems meeting a transition 

date earlier than MY 2021 through a 

narrowed use limit. EIA recommended 

transition in MY 2017 and suggested 

EPA grant a limited exemption until MY 

2021 for companies who publicly 

pledge to convert to CO2 systems. 

Response: EPA is not finalizing 

today’s rule with a change of status for 

HFC–134a as of MY 2017, as 

recommended by these commenters. As 

discussed above, it is our understanding 

that because of the necessary changes to 

hardware, manufacturers will need to 

transition most vehicles during a 

redesign cycle. Although in some cases 

where less extensive hardware changes 

are required, it will be possible to 

transition mid-cycle, it is not reasonable 

to expect that most manufacturers will 

be able to do so. Achieving a transition 

by MY 2017, approximately one year 

from now, would not be feasible for any 

manufacturers that had not already 

started transition planning before 

issuance of the NPRM, and in such a 

circumstance, we do not consider it 

reasonable to require compliance based 

on actions that would have been 

necessary before issuance of the NPRM. 

Rather than setting a change of status 

date that we expect manufacturers may 

have difficulty meeting, we are setting 

the change of status date at the earliest 

model year by which the best 

information indicates that all model 

vehicles can be safely transitioned to 

lower-GWP alternatives in accordance 

with the use conditions. 

Concerning EIA’s suggestion for a 

limited exemption until MY 2021 for 

companies who publicly pledge to 

convert to CO2 systems, because we 

have set MY 2021 as the status change 

date for all vehicles, there is no need for 

an exemption related to adoption of CO2

MVAC systems. 

Comment: A private citizen 

commented in support of a MY 2021 

change of status. 

Response: EPA is finalizing a MY 

2021 transition date for the reasons 

previously stated. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported transition in MY 2025 or 

later, including AAM, Global 

Automakers, NADA and Mexichem. The 

majority of these commenters stated that 

reengineering and system design 

requirements for alternative refrigerants 

require significant lead time and 

necessitate transition during a vehicle 

redesign cycle. Commenters stated that 

two full design cycles lasting beyond 

MY 2021 may be necessary in order to 

complete the transition due to timing of 

publication of the proposed status 

change rule, and the relationship of that 

to where manufacturers are in the 

redesign cycle for each model. Global 

Automakers commented that the vehicle 

redesign cycle is usually locked in about 

two years before the model year. 

Commenters supporting a transition 

date of MY 2025 or later also 

commented that a later date would align 

with the existing LD GHG Rule with no 

measurable environmental impact at 

stake, and address supply concerns. 

With regard to the 10% of vehicle 

platforms identified in the 2014 

industry survey as planning to 

transition after MY 2021, AAM, and 

Global Automakers commented that 

those are not all small volume platforms 

and the production will account for a 

small, but not insignificant percentage 

of production after MY 2021. 

Response: Regarding comments by 

AAM, Global Automakers, and 

Mexichem suggesting that two full 

design cycles, extending past MY 2021, 

would be needed to transition all 

vehicle models to alternative 

refrigerants, the commenters failed to 

provide any specific, technical support 

for such a claim. EPA appreciates the 

submission of 2014 survey data 

indicating that automobile 

manufacturers have plans in place to 

transition 90% of vehicle models to 

alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. 

However, the commenters did not 

provide support or an explanation of 

why it will not be technically feasible to 

transition each of the remaining 

individual models by MY 2021. 

According to commenters, the vehicle 

redesign is locked in two years before 

the model year; therefore, time still 

exists to make the necessary alterations 

to MY 2017, MY 2018 and later 

vehicles. While we believe it would be 

possible for the majority of models to 

transition by MY 2021 during a redesign 

cycle, EPA is aware that sometimes it is 

technically feasible to transition 

between redesign cycles during a midcycle redesign, or refresh. A 

manufacturer shared with EPA 

information claimed as confidential that 

more than one vehicle model in the 

United States has been transitioned to 

HFO–1234yf, in compliance with the 

SNAP use conditions, between 

scheduled redesign cycles. Although it 

would not be feasible to expect most 

models to transition mid-redesign cycle, 

for such a small number of models, this 

is likely to be feasible. EPA did not 

receive any information that provides 

specific and sufficient information to 

show that transition by MY 2021 is not 

technically feasible for any specific 

model vehicle. One automobile 

manufacturer provided information 

claimed as confidential concerning 

vehicles used for a specific purpose but 

did not provide sufficient justification 

that transition by MY 2021 was not 

feasible for technical reasons. EPA is 

aware of two automobile manufacturers 

that will have the majority of their U.S. 

fleet transitioned by MY 2016. EPA is 

also aware of several automobile 

manufacturers intending to transition all 

of their vehicle models by MY 2021. 

While the AAM and Global 

Automakers survey does not indicate 

the impetus for the transition plans for 

the various manufacturers and models, 

EPA assumes the plans were adopted in 

response to the credits offered under 

EPA’s LD GHG Rule. EPA further 

assumes these transition plans were 

based on strategic utilization of credits 

available under the rule as a flexibility 

measure, rather than technical 

feasibility of transition, and EPA did not 

receive any information to the contrary. 

Comment: AAM stated that a MY 

2025 transition date would 

accommodate ‘‘run-out’’ models. 

‘‘Run-out’’ models are defined as 

models that, for a variety of reasons, 

will continue to be produced and 

marketed without any updates to major 

vehicle sub-systems, including AC 

systems. Commenters indicated that to 

require an early end of production for 

such run-out models would increase the 

levels of stranded investment associated 

with ending the production of such 

models prematurely. 

Response: Commenters did not 

indicate what portion of the vehicle 

models with current plans to transition 

in MYs after 2021 is made up of ‘‘runout’’ models, if any, as compared to 

other models captured in the results of 

the industry survey. In the proposed 

rule, EPA requested comment on 

changing the status of HFC–134a in a 

MY later than 2021, ‘‘including specific 

information supporting claims that a 

transition by MY 2021 would not be 

technically feasible because specific 

model vehicles cannot be redesigned to 

safely use alternative refrigerants by MY 

2021.’’ EPA did not receive this type of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42895 

information. EPA is not aware of any 

technical barriers that preclude 

transition of ‘‘run-out’’ models by MY 

2021 given the time available between 

now and MY 2021 to implement a 

transition for these models. 

Comment: Commenters indicated the 

challenges associated with designing 

MVAC systems to use alternative 

refrigerants, especially CO2. AAM 

provided information on the hardware 

changes and component supply, as well 

as industry standards needed for MVAC 

systems to use CO2. AAM commented 

that ‘‘a MY 2025 date would allow extra 

time for commercialization of CO2

MVACs.’’ 

Response: EPA is aware that CO2

systems require significantly more 

complex redesign and hardware 

development than HFO–1234yf systems, 

primarily because the operating 

pressures of these systems will be 

significantly higher than that of a HFC– 

134a system. Therefore, EPA 

understands that incorporation of CO2

MVAC systems would most likely need 

to occur during product redesign, not 

product refresh. At least one 

manufacturer has stated that it plans on 

using CO2 systems. These systems are 

currently in prototype phase, and we 

understand that there may be significant 

technical hurdles yet to overcome. 

However, those pursuing this option 

have announced plans to introduce cars 

in Europe with CO2 MVAC systems as 

early as MY 2017. This timing allows for 

several years after initial deployment of 

these systems for automobile 

manufacturers to redesign models prior 

to the MY 2021 date in the United 

States. 

Given the transition plans in place, 

EPA disagrees that other alternatives, 

including CO2, cannot be used 

consistent with the use conditions by 

MY 2021. However, even if a particular 

alternative could not be used in some or 

any vehicles consistent with the use 

conditions by MY 2021, for the reasons 

already provided, we have determined 

that other alternatives can be safely used 

consistent with the use conditions by 

MY 2021. Because alternatives that pose 

lower risk than HFC–134a will be 

available by MY 2021, we do not believe 

there is a basis for selecting a later date 

for changing the status of HFC–134a. 

Comment: AAM raised concerns 

about the transition of manufacturing 

facilities and the need to modify or 

upgrade refrigerant storage facilities and 

charging stations on assembly lines. 

Also, the commenters stated that 

because many manufacturing facilities 

produce multiple vehicle models, some 

plants may not have the space necessary 

to accommodate infrastructure for both 

refrigerants. 

Response: EPA understands that there 

are challenges associated with 

transitioning refrigerants. EPA is also 

aware that prior to issuance of the 

NPRM, manufacturers were planning a 

gradual, model-by-model transition, in 

which some models would be filled 

with HFC–134a while others are filled 

with HFO–1234yf or another alternative 

refrigerant at the same plant. 

Comment: In the proposed rule EPA 

requested specific information 

supporting claims that a transition by 

MY 2021 would not be technically 

feasible because specific model vehicles 

cannot be redesigned to safely use 

alternative refrigerants by MY 2021. 

AAM commented stating that ‘‘EPA did 

not properly consider confidentially 

submitted information that alternatives 

will not be available until after MY 

2021.’’ 

Response: EPA has considered 

information provided to the Agency and 

claimed as confidential as support for 

this and other decisions that are part of 

this action. As described elsewhere in 

this section, EPA did not receive 

sufficient information, whether claimed 

confidential or not, to conclude that 

other alternatives cannot be used 

consistent with their use conditions by 

MY 2021. 

Comment: Many commenters 

provided comments about the impact 

the supply of acceptable alternatives 

could have on the timeline for 

transition. Several commenters believe 

there is enough supply of alternatives to 

transition prior to MY 2021. 

The comments submitted by 

Honeywell and DuPont, current 

suppliers of HFO–1234yf, indicate that 

both companies are confident in their 

ability to supply enough HFO–1234yf to 

support a full transition by MY 2018 

and MY 2019, respectively. According 

to comments submitted by Honeywell 

‘‘there is one commercial scale HFO– 

1234yf production plant operating today 

in China, a second one is expected to be 

commissioned in the first half of 2015 

in Japan via a strategic supply 

relationship between Honeywell and 

Asahi Glass Company Ltd, and a third 

world-scale plant will be commissioned 

by Honeywell by the end of 2016 in 

Geismar, Louisiana.’’ DuPont submitted 

similar comments on announced or 

planned production capacity in Asia, 

the United States and Europe by 

multiple producers, including DuPont, 

Honeywell, and Asahi Glass Co. (AGC), 

indicating that production will begin in 

2015–2017 at most of these facilities. 

CARB commented that they 

understand that chemical manufacturers 

expect to be capable of providing a 

sufficient supply of HFO–1234yf for 

complete U.S. transition away from 

HFC–134a starting with MY 2018. In 

support of a MY 2017 transition date, 

NRDC and IGSD commented that the 

supply of alternatives (HFO–1234yf and 

others) is not a constraint; they believe 

EPA correctly recognizes that 

‘‘production plans for the refrigerant 

appear to be in place to make it 

available in volumes that meet current 

and projected domestic auto industry 

demand.’’ 

Response: EPA appreciates 

information provided by commenters 

supporting EPA’s understanding at the 

time of the proposal that sufficient 

supply will be available to support a 

transition in MY 2021. The companies 

producing HFO–1234yf commented that 

sufficient supplies should be available 

for MY 2018 or 2019, indicating that 

there will be sufficient supplies prior to 

MY 2021. In addition, the commenter 

submitted additional information to the 

Agency that they claimed as 

confidential and that further supports 

that adequate supply will be available 

by MY 2021. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported MY 2025 or later, expressing 

concerns about ongoing uncertainty in 

sufficient supply of HFO–1234yf for a 

full U.S. transition by MY 2021 due to 

limited production, as well as lack of 

competition, artificial constraints, and 

other factors. Arkema commented that 

they estimate the global demand for 

HFO–1234yf in 2021 will be around 

45,000 metric tons and they believe 

Honeywell and DuPont will only be able 

to supply half that amount. Arkema 

commented that the supply shortage 

would cause a serious dislocation in 

supply and demand (i.e., willing buyers 

would be unable to find willing sellers 

of HFO–1234yf) and having only two 

suppliers would create highly restricted 

competitive conditions. Arkema also 

commented that the manufacturer has 

not publicly announced production 

capacities for the coming years and EPA 

has not provided reliable evidence, and 

none exists, that adequate volumes of 

HFO–1234yf are or will be available to 

‘‘meet current and projected domestic 

auto industry demand.’’ Global 

Automakers commented that it is too 

soon to conclude that there will be 

adequate supplies of alternative 

refrigerants to meet U.S. demand as well 

as other possible demands for 

alternative refrigerants worldwide by 

MY 2021. 

Response: Based on EPA’s 

understanding of refrigerant supply at 

the time of the proposed rule, the 

information received from commenters 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

53AGC, 2014. ‘‘AGC to Supply Honeywell with 

HFO–1234yf—New-generation Automobile 

Refrigerant,’’ January 23, 2014. This document is 

accessible at: https://www.agc.com/english/news/

2014/0123e.pdf. 

54Arkema, 2013. ‘‘Arkema is announcing the 

construction of production capacities for new 

refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf,’’ September 4, 

2013. This document is accessible at: 

www.arkema.com/en/media/news/news-details/

Arkema-is-announcing-the-construction-ofproduction-capacities-for-new-refrigerantfluorinated-gas-1234yf/?back=true. 

in response to the proposed rule, and 

information claimed as confidential and 

provided during meetings, EPA remains 

confident that sufficient supply of 

alternatives will exist to transition 

MVAC systems in all new light-duty 

vehicles manufactured in the United 

States by MY 2021. EPA is fully aware 

of delays with the launch of some 

production facilities prior to the 

implementation of the European Union 

regulations. However, EPA notes that 

those facilities are now online and are 

producing supplies well in excess of 

what is needed to meet EU demand. 

They are not currently operating at full 

capacity. Moreover, Honeywell and 

DuPont, two producers of HFO–1234yf, 

provided information regarding plans to 

launch additional facilities, one of 

which will be a joint effort between 

Honeywell and a third chemical 

manufacturer, AGC.53 For these reasons, 

EPA does not agree with commenters 

that there will be an insufficient supply 

of alternatives by MY 2021. Further, 

EPA is also aware of public 

announcements by Arkema indicating 

planned production in 2017 of HFO– 

1234yf.54

Comment: Commenters indicated 

concern because available supply of 

HFO–1234yf will need to go to Europe 

for the January 1, 2017, transition before 

automobile manufacturers will have 

access to supply to transition in the 

United States. These commenters 

believe a MY 2025 or later transition 

date would allow sufficient time to 

alleviate supply concerns. 

Response: EPA does not agree that the 

January 1, 2017, transition in the EU 

will limit supply in the United States. 

The SNAP transition date is several 

years after the transition in the EU will 

be complete and, as noted above, the 

manufacturers of HFO–1234yf have 

provided information supporting that 

supply will be adequate by MY 2021. 

EPA does acknowledge that supply in 

the United States would likely not be 

adequate by MY 2017. The main 

suppliers of HFO–1234yf stated as much 

in their comments. 

Comment: Mexichem commented that 

the ‘‘pending re-examination 

proceedings involving sham patents 

registered by Honeywell, continue to be 

a barrier to the effective development of 

HFO–1234yf.’’ Arkema commented that 

EPA overlooks the considerable efforts 

that Honeywell has undertaken to 

maintain its exclusive control over the 

manufacture of HFO–1234yf. Arkema 

commented that ‘‘Although legal 

proceedings and investigations 

regarding Honeywell and DuPont’s 

exclusive control of HFO–1234yf are 

underway at the European Commission, 

the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. 

Patent & Trademark Office, and 

elsewhere, those proceedings and 

investigations are not yet resolved.’’ 

Arkema stated that ‘‘until those 

investigations are resolved, Honeywell 

and DuPont will control the 

manufacture of HFO–1234yf and will 

impose restrictive supply conditions, all 

with the apparent de facto endorsement 

of the EPA in violation of the Sixth 

Principle to ‘‘not endorse products 

manufactured by specific companies’’. 

Arkema adds that this will slow the 

transition to HFO–1234yf and add to its 

cost. 

Response: EPA is aware that 

proceedings and investigations are 

occurring related to the patents on 

HFO–1234yf; however, EPA is not 

involved and cannot comment on these 

proceedings. EPA believes that based on 

the information available today, 

sufficient supply will be available of 

HFO–1234yf for a full transition in MY 

2021 for new light-duty MVAC systems 

even if all manufacturers choose to use 

HFO–1234yf. Regarding the comment 

that this action is in violation of the 

‘‘Sixth Principle,’’ we disagree that EPA 

endorsed HFO–1234yf or the companies 

producing it by its inclusion on the list 

of acceptable substitutes for the MVAC 

end-use at issue in this action. HFO– 

1234yf is one of three acceptable lowerGWP alternatives and EPA does not 

believe it is appropriate to assume 

manufacturers will use only HFO– 

1234yf. In addition to HFO–1234yf, CO2

and HFC–152a are listed as acceptable 

and the manufacturers can choose 

which substitute they wish to use in 

their product. EPA does not recommend 

or require the use of a specific 

refrigerant and does not endorse 

products manufactured by specific 

companies. At least one global motor 

vehicle manufacturer has announced 

plans to have cars with MVAC systems 

using CO2 on the road in Europe by MY 

2017; we are not aware of any reason 

why such models would not be 

introduced into the United States by MY 

2021. EPA is also aware of a 

demonstration project planned by a 

major Indian motor vehicle 

manufacturer considering HFC–152a 

and HFO–1234yf in MVAC systems 

using secondary loops (Andersen et al., 

2015). As noted elsewhere in this final 

action, EPA is aware of ongoing research 

and development which could 

ultimately result in future listings of 

additional alternatives and notes that 

since the issuance of the proposal the 

Agency received a submission for one 

additional MVAC alternative. 

(b) Interaction With EPA’s LD GHG Rule 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments related to the interaction of 

this rulemaking with EPA’s LD GHG 

Standards. Commenters requesting a 

MY 2025 or later transition, including 

AAM, Global Automakers, the National 

Automobile Dealers Association 

(NADA), and Mexichem, commented 

that the later date would preserve the 

integrity and commitments made under 

the GHG program, preserve the 

compliance flexibilities granted to 

automakers and provide the same 

environmental benefits. Commenters 

stated that a MY 2025 transition allows 

for full compliance flexibility, in 

addition to credits, allotted to 

manufacturers in the vehicle GHG 

rulemakings throughout MYs 2012– 

2025. AAM requested that EPA ‘‘state 

clearly and unequivocally that EPA is 

committed to continuing the A/C credits 

through MY 2025 and beyond’’ and 

asked EPA to include this certainty in 

the regulatory text of the final SNAP 

rule and not just in the preamble. 

Response: Nothing in this final rule 

changes the regulations establishing the 

availability of air conditioning 

refrigerant credits under the GHG 

standards for MY 2017–2025, found at 

40 CFR 86.1865–12 and 1867–12. The 

stringency of the standards remains 

unchanged. As stated above, 

manufacturers may still generate and 

utilize credits for substitution of HFC– 

134a through the 2025 model year. 

Further, this final rule is also not in 

conflict with the Supplemental Notice 

of Intent (76 FR 48758, August 9, 2011) 

that described plans for EPA and 

NHTSA’s joint proposal for model years 

2017–2025, since EPA’s GHG program 

continues to provide the level of air 

conditioning credits available to 

manufacturers as specified in that 

Notice. Specifically, the Supplemental 

Notice of Intent states that 

‘‘(m)anufacturers will be able to earn 

credits for improvements in air 

conditioning . . . systems, both for 

efficiency improvements . . . and for 

leakage or alternative, lower-GWP 

refrigerants used (reduces [HFC] 

emissions).’’ 76 FR at 48761. These 

credits remain available under the lightmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42897 

55See id. at 62,779; see also id. at 62778 and 

62805. 

56See Chapter 7 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards 

and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

EPA–420–R–12–016, August 2012. 

57Except those vehicles subject to the narrowed 

use limit. 

duty program at the level specified in 

the Supplemental Notice of Intent, and 

using the same demonstration 

mechanisms set forth in that Notice. 

Moreover, the supporting assessment for 

this rulemaking is consistent with the 

assumptions set forth in the 2017–2025 

LD GHG Rule that automakers would 

switch to lower-GWP refrigerants by MY 

2021. Indeed, the standards’ stringency 

was predicated on 100% substitution 

beginning in MY 2021.55

We are not adding a statement to the 

regulatory text in the final SNAP rule. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, and reiterated here: ‘‘The 

light duty standards do provide that 

manufacturers can generate credits from 

use of alternative refrigerants with lower 

GWPs than that of HFC–134a through 

MY 2025, and the ability to generate and 

use those credits towards compliance 

with the light duty standards will not 

change if this action is finalized as 

proposed.’’ (79 FR 46142) 

(c) Environmental Impacts 

Comment: Several commenters 

addressed the climate impacts of the 

proposed HFC–134a unacceptability 

determination for MVAC. The vast 

majority of commenters on this section 

of the rule support a transition to 

climate-friendly alternatives in MVAC 

due to HFC–134a’s high global warming 

potential. Several commenters 

supporting transition prior to MY 2021 

related these impacts to the proposed 

timeline for the transition and we 

addressed those comments above (e.g., 

that if an earlier change of status date 

were adopted, there would be additional 

environmental benefits). Commenters 

requesting a transition date of MY 2025 

or later commented that the 

environmental benefits of a delayed 

change of status date will be 

substantially the same as a MY 2021 

transition because the majority of 

vehicles will transition by MY 2021 as 

a result of the LD GHG Rule. These 

commenters stated that any benefits of 

a MY 2021 or earlier transition may be 

averaged out against tailpipe emissions, 

and could result in automobile 

manufacturers slowing other fleet GHG 

reductions. DuPont commented that it is 

unlikely that any additional credits 

achieved under the LD GHG regulations 

from a MY 2019 transition date would 

be fully offset and instead there would 

likely be net additional CO2 reductions 

over those achieved by current 

regulations. Arkema commented that 

there is no significant climate risk 

reduction to be had from any SNAP 

action on HFC–134a in the MVAC 

sector, and that no further control, 

beyond that imposed by the LD GHG 

Rule, is necessary. 

Response: EPA anticipates that if a 

change of status date earlier than MY 

2021 were shown to be feasible and thus 

were adopted, additional environmental 

benefits would be gained beyond those 

accounted for under EPA’s analysis to 

support the LD GHG Rule.56 In EPA’s 

analysis of the environmental benefits 

associated with the proposed and final 

change of status rule, EPA assumed no 

environmental benefits from domestic 

transition of MVAC systems in lightduty vehicles given that the 

environmental benefits resulting from a 

full transition by MY 2021 were 

accounted for in the LD GHG Rule. The 

LD GHG Rule anticipated that transition 

for MVAC systems manufactured for use 

in the United States, while continuing 

to provide flexibility to manufacturers 

until MY 2025. This rule, however, 

ensures a complete transition away from 

HFC–134a by MY 2021 to a refrigerant 

that reduces the overall risks to human 

health and the environment for all 

MVAC systems manufactured in the 

United States, including those exported 

to other countries,57 and those imported 

into the United States. The benefits 

analysis includes these benefits. Also, 

the analysis was updated to reflect the 

potential impact of the narrowed use 

limits in this final rule that allow 

continued use of HFC–134a for vehicles 

exported to countries with inadequate 

infrastructure to support safer 

alternatives. For additional information 

on environmental benefits analysis 

conducted for this rule, see the 

supporting document ‘‘Climate Benefits 

of the SNAP Program Status Change 

Rule’’ (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b). 

Comment: Arkema commented that 

the NPRM deprives U.S. plants of 

existing global business in HFC–134a 

without yielding any environmental 

benefit. Arkema also noted that EPA 

said, as part of its regulations for 

HCFCs, that production of HCFC–22 for 

export from the U.S. might displace 

production in other countries that do 

not control their emissions as 

stringently as U.S. chemical producers. 

Arkema stated, ‘‘if U.S. production of 

HCFCs reduces overall environmental 

risks, then so does U.S. production of 

HFC–134a, and EPA should not be using 

the risk-based SNAP program to restrict 

auto exports.’’ 

Response: This rule does not directly 

regulate production of HFC–134a, 

unlike the rulemaking on the phaseout 

of HCFCs that Arkema cited; rather, we 

are regulating use of HFC–134a as a 

substitute in specific uses. Further, we 

disagree with Arkema’s assertion that 

U.S. production of HFC–134a would 

potentially reduce overall 

environmental risks if U.S. production 

of HCFCs reduces environmental risks. 

EPA’s HCFC allocation rule specifically 

mentioned that HCFC–22 production 

(and not production of HCFCs in 

general) results in byproduct emissions 

of HFC–23, a gas with a very high GWP 

of 14,800. The commenter has not 

provided any information indicating 

that emissions from production of HFC– 

134a, with a GWP of 1,430, or its 

byproducts would have a similar high 

environmental impact. We disagree with 

the commenter’s assumptions as well as 

the conclusion that the SNAP program 

should not regulate exports of vehicles. 

Comment: AAM stated that the 

MVAC-related climate benefits of this 

rulemaking have been incorrectly 

calculated and that ‘‘the environmental 

benefits of a MY 2025 change of listing 

status date are substantially the same as 

in MY 2021 date.’’ AAM also 

commented that the cessation of exports 

of vehicles containing HFC–134a to EU 

countries should not be included in the 

benefits calculation because the EU 

already prohibits the use of HFC–134a 

and that subtracting exports to EU 

countries and to Canada would reduce 

the climate benefit due to exports by 

half to 1 MMTCO2eq. 

Response: EPA directs commenters to 

the benefits analysis associated with the 

final rule and in particular to the 

anticipated long term change in the 

trajectory for high-GWP HFCs and 

alternatives. The benefits analysis is 

available in the docket and reflects the 

final decisions in this action. It has been 

updated since the issuance of the NPRM 

to reflect changes between the NPRM 

and the final rule. The benefits analysis 

for the final rule does not include 

vehicles sold into the EU or Canada, 

given the EU’s existing F-gas regulations 

and MAC Directive, and for Canada, the 

relationship between their market and 

ours. 

(d) Cost Impacts of Rule 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments concerning the cost impact of 

this rulemaking for the MVAC end-use. 

AAM, Global Automakers, and 

Mexichem commented that delaying 

transition to MY 2025 or later would 

avoid costs and engineering burdens on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

58Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA). 2012. Joint Technical Support Document: 

Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards. August 2012. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

climate/documents/420r12901.pdf. 

manufacturers resulting from making 

adjustments to their refrigerant changeover plans for both vehicles and 

manufacturing plants. NRDC and IGSD 

commented that a transition date of MY 

2017 would align the U.S. and EU 

markets and erase these competitive 

disadvantages with minimal impact to 

industry. The Automotive Refrigeration 

Products Institute (ARPI) and Auto Care 

Association commented that a change 

from HFC–134a to lower-GWP 

refrigerants should not cause any 

substantial economic hardship to car 

owners. Additional comments relating 

to EPA’s economic analysis are included 

in section VII.B of the preamble, ‘‘Cost 

and economic impacts of proposed 

status changes.’’ 

Response: EPA understands that there 

are challenges associated with 

transitioning refrigerants, including 

costs to manufacturers in redesigning 

equipment and making changes to 

manufacturing facilities. However, as 

explained in more detail in the response 

to comments later in this preamble, 

under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 

CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost 

is limited to cost of the substitute under 

review, and that consideration does not 

include the cost of transition when a 

substitute is found unacceptable. 

Moreover, we note that during model 

redesigns, many other engineering 

changes are being made and that 

changing the MVAC system during a 

planned redesign cycle could reduce 

costs when compared to MVAC system 

changes mid-redesign cycle. We 

anticipate that a change of status in MY 

2021 will allow manufacturers to make 

changes to the MVAC systems for most 

vehicle models as part of the model 

redesign process. 

Comment: A few commenters noted 

the high price of HFO–1234yf relative to 

HFC–134a. One commenter, referring to 

the NPRM, stated that EPA continues to 

believe that HFO–1234yf is unlikely to 

ever be as inexpensive as HFC–134a is 

currently. Commenters stated that the 

high price of HFO–1234yf is likely to 

slow the transition away from HFC– 

134a in the United States. 

Response: As explained in more detail 

in the response to comments later in 

this preamble, under the SNAP criteria 

for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the 

only cost information that EPA 

considers as part of its SNAP review is 

the cost of the substitute under review. 

As part of EPA’s cost analysis 

conducted in support of this 

rulemaking, the potential costs to 

manufacturers were estimated based on 

per-system costs of alternative systems, 

as identified in EPA’s report on Global 

Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse 

Gases: 2010–2030 (EPA, 2013a), and 

converted to 2013 dollars. The 

incremental per-system cost of an 

alternative MVAC system compared to 

an HFC–134a system is estimated to be 

about $62/unit. EPA previously 

analyzed these costs in documents 

supporting the LD GHG Rule and in that 

analysis accounted for the cost of 100% 

of domestic vehicles to transition to use 

of HFO–1234yf by MY 2021. These 

incremental costs are less than 1% 

relative to the total direct manufacturing 

cost for a light-duty vehicle.58 EPA does 

not believe an incremental cost of less 

than 1% of the total direct 

manufacturing cost will slow the 

transition away from HFC–134a. EPA 

understands that often new alternatives 

have higher initial costs, but this is not 

always true. In addition, over time the 

cost of the alternative often drops as 

demand and supply increase. 

Comment: Global Automakers and 

AAM commented that if EPA includes 

exports in this regulation, EPA would be 

placing U.S.-based manufacturers of 

export vehicles at a competitive 

disadvantage compared to automakers 

producing vehicles outside of the 

United States. Global Automakers stated 

in their comment that ‘‘this rulemaking 

will unnecessarily cause substantial 

economic harm to the U.S. economy, 

U.S. jobs, and balance of payments if 

exports are included in the regulatory 

provisions.’’ Arkema, Mexichem, and 

BMW also commented on the potential 

economic impacts of regulating exports. 

Response: An inability to export 

vehicles manufactured with HFC–134a 

could be a competitive disadvantage in 

any countries where vehicles 

manufactured with other alternatives 

cannot be supported. However, as 

discussed above, the additional cost of 

a vehicle manufactured using an 

alternative (e.g., HFO–1234yf) is 

anticipated to be approximately $62 

more per vehicle; this is not sufficient 

to create a competitive disadvantage in 

countries where both HFC–134a and 

other alternatives are supported. 

Further, EPA is providing a narrowed 

use limit in this final action that would 

allow vehicles destined for export to a 

country with insufficient infrastructure 

to be manufactured with HFC–134a 

through MY 2025. Thus, U.S. 

manufacturers should not experience a 

competitive disadvantage. 

(e) Servicing and Retrofits 

Comment: EPA received comments 

related to the continued servicing of 

MVAC systems manufactured to use 

HFC–134a. Two commenters support 

the continued acceptability of HFC– 

134a for servicing, and one commenter 

requests assurance that continued 

servicing will be permitted. ARPI and 

the Auto Care Association, representing 

the automotive aftermarket industry, 

jointly commented that they support the 

change of status of HFC–134a in MVAC 

provided that systems using 

replacement refrigerants are available at 

the time at a reasonable price and that 

the ‘‘phase out’’ does not adversely 

affect the use of HFC–134a in the 

millions of vehicles which will then 

still have MVAC systems designed for 

that refrigerant. 

Response: EPA did not propose and is 

not finalizing a change of status for 

HFC–134a used for servicing MVAC 

systems designed to use HFC–134a. 

Thus, vehicles manufactured to use 

HFC–134a may, consistent with this 

rule, continue to be serviced with HFC– 

134a. 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

requesting clarification on the ability to 

retrofit or service an HFO–1234yf 

system with HFC–134a. 

Response: As discussed elsewhere in 

the preamble, the SNAP regulations 

include use conditions and other 

requirements that limit the ability to 

service an MVAC system designed to 

use an alternative with a refrigerant 

other than the one the system was 

designed to use. See section V.B.3 for a 

detailed description. 

Also, as discussed in more detail in 

section V.B.3, for vehicles for which the 

manufacturer counts air conditioning 

credits toward its LD GHG compliance, 

the MVAC systems (or elements of those 

systems) are considered emissionrelated components as defined in 40 

CFR 86.1803. This designation includes 

provisions for emission-related 

warranty, requirements that they 

operate properly for the specified useful 

life, and tampering restrictions. 

(f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of 

MVAC Systems 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that EPA also list the refrigerant blends 

as unacceptable for use in retrofits in 

the final rule as well as in new 

equipment. SAE Interior Climate 

Control Committee (SAE ICCC), the 

leading standards writing body in the 

United States for MVAC, commented 

that they support the extension of the 

unacceptability finding to retrofits 

because they have never written any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42899 

standards for these refrigerants. The 

other commenter, DuPont, 

recommended that because the 

refrigerants are not currently in use and 

it would be undesirable to have them 

used, EPA should also change the SNAP 

status for the blend refrigerants to 

unacceptable for retrofit (in addition to 

new) MVAC uses. 

Response: EPA has not undertaken 

the full analysis necessary to determine 

whether to list these refrigerant blends 

as unacceptable for retrofits. 

Accordingly, EPA did not propose to 

find the refrigerant blends unacceptable 

for retrofits. Additional information, as 

well as an opportunity for public 

comment, would be necessary before we 

would be able to potentially find the 

refrigerant blends unacceptable for use 

in retrofits (e.g., information on the 

extent of use of the refrigerant blends). 

EPA appreciates the comments 

submitted on this topic and will take 

them into consideration when preparing 

additional status change rules. 

(g) Use Conditions for HFC–134a 

Comment: Arkema commented that it 

is ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ for EPA to 

find acceptable substances that could 

compete with HFC–134a in MVAC only 

because those other substances are 

subject to use conditions, and then to 

find HFC–134a unacceptable based on 

comparisons to those other substances 

without considering any comparable use 

restriction on HFC–134a. The 

commenter referred to a discussion in 

the proposed rule concerning 

establishing charge limits through use 

conditions for a number of high GWP 

refrigerant blends for use in 

supermarket systems and condensing 

units as an example. 

Response: EPA has not proposed 

additional use conditions for HFC–134a 

comparable to those for HFO–1234yf, 

HFC–152a, and CO2 because the ways of 

addressing risks for these substitutes are 

not comparable. The use conditions 

unique to HFO–1234yf and HFC–152a 

address flammability risks through 

engineering strategies that will keep 

refrigerant concentrations below the 

lower flammability limit in each vehicle 

and by requiring labels providing 

information on the flammability risk. 

The use conditions unique to CO2

address toxicity and consumer exposure 

risks through requiring engineering 

strategies that will keep refrigerant 

concentrations at safe levels in the 

passenger compartment of the vehicle. 

In contrast, the environmental risks 

from HFC–134a are due to the collective 

global impact of refrigerant emissions 

released over time from the entire 

automotive industry. 

In past cases where the SNAP 

program has regulated other substitutes 

that posed high environmental risk due 

to collective global emissions, we have 

taken three different approaches. One 

approach has been to restrict the 

substitute to a niche use through a 

narrowed use limit, where it was 

particularly difficult to find any feasible 

substitute and the niche use was 

unlikely to result in significant total 

emissions (e.g., narrowed use limit on 

high-GWP fire suppressant SF6 for use 

only as a discharge agent in military 

applications and in civilian aircraft at 

appendix B to 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

G). A similar approach has been to 

restrict the substitute through a 

narrowed use limit to use only ‘‘where 

other alternatives are not technically 

feasible due to performance or safety 

requirements’’ (e.g., narrowed use limits 

on perfluorocarbon solvents for 

precision cleaning and C6F14 as a total 

flooding agent for fire suppression at 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart 

G). The third approach EPA has used to 

address environmental risks from global 

emissions of a substitute, and the only 

approach we have taken to date for such 

a substitute that is already widespread 

in industry, is to find the substitute 

unacceptable (e.g., HCFC–141b in 

solvent cleaning at appendix A to 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G and HCFC–141b 

in foam blowing at appendix M to 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G). MVAC is not 

a niche use, and there are clearly other 

technically feasible substitutes that will 

be available by the status change date 

specified in this final rule for use in 

vehicles that will be sold domestically, 

so it is not reasonable to provide a 

narrowed use limit for HFC–134a 

beyond that established in this final rule 

for export to nations with insufficient 

infrastructure for other alternatives. 

Concerning Arkema’s reference to a 

discussion on use conditions for charge 

size limits, we note that in the proposed 

rule we also stated, ‘‘However, given the 

high GWP of these refrigerants 

compared to other refrigerants that are 

available in these end-uses, we do not 

believe that use with a small charge size 

adequately addresses the greater risk 

they pose.’’ This is even more so in 

MVAC than in commercial refrigeration 

products, due to the more widespread 

use of MVAC in hundreds of millions of 

vehicles and the greater difference in 

GWP between the unacceptable 

substitute and other, lower-GWP 

alternative, compared to supermarket 

systems and remote condensing units. 

(h) Flexibility for Exports 

Comment: NRDC, IGSD, and DuPont 

suggested that if EPA finalizes MY 2017 

or MY 2019, respectively, EPA could 

consider narrowed use limits to address 

any sub-sectors that have problems 

meeting a transition date earlier than 

MY 2021, if, for example, the Agency 

believed there was a basis to claims of 

country-specific performance barriers 

(e.g., due to high ambient temperatures) 

or lack of infrastructure for safer 

alternatives. 

Response: As discussed further in this 

section, EPA has finalized a narrowed 

use limit for certain vehicles to be 

exported to countries that have not yet 

developed sufficient infrastructure for 

using safer alternatives. EPA has 

received no documentation supporting a 

narrowed use limit related to ambient 

temperature conditions, and therefore, 

has not included such a narrowed use 

limit in this final action. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

from several commenters related to the 

servicing infrastructure for lower-GWP 

alternatives outside the United States. 

Some details are provided below and 

the remaining details can be found in 

the Response to Comments document. 

Arkema, Mexichem, BMW, AAM, and 

Global Automakers raised concerns 

including whether destinations for 

exported vehicles will have sufficient 

service sector support and refrigerant 

distribution networks for HFO–1234yf; 

and the ability to conform to SNAP use 

conditions, given the large proportion of 

automobiles manufactured in the U.S. 

for export (up to one-fourth). 

Commenters question whether the 

alternatives are truly ‘‘available’’ for use 

in export markets if there is a lack of 

service sector support and comment that 

this regulation could lead to 

manufacturers having to limit export 

production at U.S. assembly plants. 

Commenters are also concerned about 

the time needed to overcome regulatory 

and legislative barriers. AAM suggested 

that EPA designate certain export 

markets that can still receive U.S. 

exports of HFC–134a vehicles, which 

they believe currently should be all 

export markets except Canada and 

Europe. 

In contrast, DuPont and Honeywell, 

manufacturers of HFO–1234yf, asserted 

that service supply follows demand and 

the equipment for low GWP refrigerant 

service is readily available. These 

commenters stated that dealers and 

service shops can be expected to acquire 

the necessary equipment and materials 

to serve the market demand and that it 

is the responsibility of the vehicle 

manufacturer to ensure that their 

authorized dealers in those countries are 

able to provide all the necessary service 

to these exported cars under warranty. 

Honeywell and DuPont both stated that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

they have already developed an 

extensive network of distributors that 

are capable of supplying HFO–1234yf 

globally. DuPont stated that based on 

demand from the motor vehicle 

aftermarket, they have distribution 

covering more than 40 countries, 11 

more than the combined EU member 

states and the United States, and 

including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel 

and the United Arab Emirates. 

Response: EPA is aware that many 

countries, in addition to Canada and 

those in the EU, already have servicing 

infrastructure in place, and anticipates 

that the number will grow by MY 2021. 

However, EPA also recognizes that there 

may be some markets where additional 

time may be needed to ensure servicing 

infrastructure is available. EPA is 

providing a narrowed use limit for 

HFC–134a in new MVAC systems 

destined for use in countries that do not 

have infrastructure in place for servicing 

with other acceptable refrigerants. This 

narrowed use limit will remain in place 

through MY 2025. The remaining 

information in this response explains 

why EPA believes it is not necessary to 

have a narrowed use limit in place 

indefinitely. EPA is particularly 

encouraged to learn that there is 

currently distribution for HFO–1234yf 

in 40 countries, 11 more than the 

combined EU member states and the 

United States and, that these countries 

include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel and 

the United Arab Emirates, which 

indicates that infrastructure is already 

being put in place in a significant 

number of countries. 

EPA does not agree that every country 

in the world would need as much time 

as was needed in North America and 

Europe to resolve barriers to transition. 

Many countries look to the SNAP 

program and the EU’s REACH program 

as a source of information to inform 

their domestic programs and, thus 

transition for those countries should 

proceed more quickly. EPA notes the 

widespread use of flammable 

refrigerants for various end-uses in other 

countries (more so than in the United 

States) as well as the inclusion of such 

refrigerants for projects considered by 

the Executive Committee of the 

Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund. 

We anticipate that many countries that 

do not have adequate infrastructure in 

place in 2015 will have it in place in 

time to service MY 2021 vehicles. 

In many cases international agencies, 

such as the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), have been working 

with developing countries to facilitate 

changes in domestic regulations to 

allow for the use of lower-GWP 

solutions. This has been particularly 

true since 2007 when the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol adopted a more 

aggressive phaseout schedule for 

HCFCs, for end-uses using HCFCs such 

as stand-alone commercial refrigeration 

appliances. Thus there are systems in 

place for communicating information on 

new refrigerants and for sharing 

experience. Further, the experiences of 

the United States and Europe are being 

shared widely. We have provided 

information to the Montreal Protocol’s 

Secretariat and to UNEP. We already are 

also seeing information shared through 

a range of mechanisms by the 

Secretariat and UNEP as well as 

included in reports of the Montreal 

Protocol’s Technical and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP), SAE, and 

other bodies. 

In addition, EPA notes that the G–7 

leaders committed in June 2014 to 

promote the rapid deployment of 

climate-friendly and safe alternatives to 

HFCs in motor vehicle air-conditioning 

and to promote public procurement of 

climate-friendly HFC alternatives. EPA 

notes that many countries already are 

committed to take action to promote 

public procurement of climate-friendly 

lower-GWP alternatives whenever 

feasible and would likely consider 

MVAC as a potentially feasible end-use. 

For the reasons above, we believe that 

sufficient progress is being made and 

will continue to be made such that the 

narrowed use limit need not apply 

beyond MY 2025. 

Comment: Global Automakers 

commented that it is imperative to have 

trained technicians and shops equipped 

with the necessary equipment to service 

and repair MVAC systems using 

flammable refrigerants, and special 

equipment is needed to recover, recycle, 

and re-charge flammable refrigerants 

before vehicles using such refrigerants 

can be marketed in a specific country. 

AAM commented that on average, every 

vehicle gets completely recharged with 

new refrigerant at least once during its 

lifetime, and therefore, the unique need 

for such widespread service support for 

MVAC differentiates this situation from 

past SNAP considerations of export 

markets for other appliances. 

Response: EPA agrees with the value 

of providing information and training to 

technicians. In the United States, we are 

currently working with technician 

certification programs to include 

information on HFC–152a, R–744, and 

HFO–1234yf. EPA agrees with 

commenters that there is value in 

technician training and education on a 

global basis. International agencies such 

as UNEP could potentially be a source 

of such training in developing countries. 

EPA does not agree that it is necessary 

to ensure such training is in place in all 

markets worldwide in order to fully 

accommodate U.S. exports with the new 

refrigerants. EPA has already developed 

information on the newer alternative 

refrigerants acceptable in the United 

States that is available on our Web site 

and could be a resource for others. In 

addition, the use conditions requiring 

labeling and unique fittings for 

refrigerants for MVAC for service 

equipment and vehicle service ports 

serves as a means for informing 

technicians as to what refrigerant is 

being used. 

EPA understands that the commenters 

are suggesting that there still may be 

markets that do not have infrastructure 

in place by MY 2025. Based on the 

speed of transition that we are seeing, 

EPA does not agree. However, the 

Agency could consider proposing a 

change in the future if needed. 

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and 

Vending Machines 

1. Background 

(a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, EndUse Categories and Commonly-Used 

Refrigerants 

EPA refers readers to section V.C.1 of 

the preamble to the proposed rule for a 

detailed discussion of the end-uses 

within the refrigeration sector covered 

by this rule as well as information on 

some of the refrigerants used within 

those end-uses. 

In the proposed rule, EPA proposed to 

change the listing for certain refrigerants 

for two end-uses within the 

‘‘commercial refrigeration’’ sector— 

retail food refrigeration and vending 

machines. Retail food refrigeration, as 

affected by today’s rule, is composed of 

three main categories of equipment: 

Stand-alone equipment; remote 

condensing units; and supermarket 

systems. Stand-alone equipment 

consists of refrigerators, freezers, and 

reach-in coolers (either open or with 

doors) where all refrigeration 

components are integrated and, for the 

smallest types, the refrigeration circuit 

is entirely brazed or welded. These 

systems are termed ‘‘stand-alone’’ 

within the SNAP program because they 

are fully charged with refrigerant at the 

factory and typically require only an 

electricity supply to begin operation. 

Condensing units, called remote 

condensing units in this final action as 

discussed below, exhibit refrigerating 

capacities that typically range from 1 

kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration 

tons) and are composed of one (and 

sometimes two) compressor(s), one 

condenser, and one receiver assembled 

into a single unit, which is normally 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42901 

59www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advancedrefrigeration. 

located external to the sales area. The 

modifier ‘‘remote’’ indicates that the 

condenser (and often other parts of the 

system) are not located in the space or 

area cooled by the evaporator but are 

instead located outside the room, 

typically ejecting heat to the outdoor 

ambient environment. Remote 

condensing units are commonly 

installed in convenience stores and 

specialty shops such as bakeries and 

butcher shops, as well as in 

supermarkets, restaurants and other 

locations where food is stored, served or 

sold. 

Typical supermarket systems are 

known as multiplex or centralized 

systems. They operate with racks of 

compressors installed in a machinery 

room. Two main design classifications 

are used: Direct and indirect systems. At 

least 70% of supermarkets in the United 

States use centralized direct expansion 

(DX) systems to cool their display 

cases.59 In these systems, the refrigerant 

circulates from the machinery room to 

the sales area, where it evaporates in 

display-case heat exchangers, and then 

returns in vapor phase to the suction 

headers of the compressor racks. 

Another direct supermarket design, 

often referred to as a distributed 

refrigeration system, uses an array of 

separate compressor racks located near 

the display cases rather than having a 

central compressor rack system. Indirect 

supermarket designs include secondary 

loop systems and cascade refrigeration. 

Indirect systems use a chiller or other 

refrigeration system to cool a secondary 

fluid that is then circulated throughout 

the store to the cases. 

Refrigerant choices depend on the 

refrigerant charge (i.e., the amount of 

refrigerant a system is designed to 

contain under normal operating 

conditions), the product temperature 

required, energy efficiency, system 

performance, ambient temperatures, 

operating conditions, potential impact 

on community safety, potential risk to 

personal safety, cost, and minimization 

of direct and indirect environmental 

impacts, among other things. In 

addition, federal or local regulations 

may also affect refrigerant choice. For 

instance, regulations from the OSHA 

may restrict or place requirements on 

the use of some refrigerants, such as 

ammonia (R–717). Building codes from 

local and State agencies may also 

incorporate limits on the amount of 

particular refrigerants used. There are 

and will continue to be a number of 

factors that retailers must consider 

when selecting the refrigerant and 

operating system design. While a 

number of approaches exist, there is no 

uniformly accepted holistic analysis of 

the multiple factors listed above. EPA 

recognizes that there must be a range of 

options, and that the decision as to 

which option to select must remain with 

the owner and operator of the system. 

(b) Terms and Coverage 

During a meeting with EPA just prior 

to publication of the proposed rule, an 

industry trade organization representing 

manufacturers of refrigeration 

equipment, Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 

raised concerns that in some situations 

the definitions and categories used in 

the SNAP program differ from those 

used by the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) and/or the industry and they 

submitted a document identifying those 

definitions and categories (see EPA 

Meeting on Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment—June 10, 2014 under 

Docket ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 

0005). They indicated that the term 

‘‘commercial refrigeration’’ is often first 

divided by the type and location of the 

condensing unit, using two broad terms. 

‘‘Remote condensing’’ is used to 

indicate systems where the condensing 

unit and compressors are located 

remotely from where food is stored or 

displayed and instead the refrigerant or 

secondary-fluid is piped to the cases or 

rooms where the food is located. ‘‘Selfcontained’’ is used to indicate that the 

condensing unit (along with the 

compressor and evaporator) is 

integrated into the case in which the 

food is stored and displayed. These 

units are generally initially charged by 

the case manufacturer at the 

manufacturing plant. 

EPA notes that the term ‘‘selfcontained’’ is synonymous with the 

SNAP end-use category ‘‘stand-alone’’ 

and we are retaining use of the term 

stand-alone for this rulemaking action. 

The term ‘‘remote condensing’’ applies 

to the SNAP end-use categories of 

‘‘supermarket systems’’ and 

‘‘condensing units.’’ For the latter enduse category, in this final rule we are 

revising the term ‘‘condensing units’’ to 

be ‘‘remote condensing units.’’ EPA 

draws a distinction between 

‘‘supermarket systems’’ and ‘‘remote 

condensing units’’ based on the number 

of compressors in the remote 

condensing system. Supermarket 

systems generally have more than two 

compressors arranged in a ‘‘rack’’ 

whereas remote condensing units 

typically have only one or two 

compressors linked to a single 

condenser. For purposes of this rule, we 

are keeping these two categories 

separate. 

The AHRI document (Docket ID# 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0005) also 

attempts to draw an additional 

distinction regarding commercial walkin coolers and freezers. We note that we 

do not treat such units separate from the 

categories described above. Rather such 

units would fall within the end-use 

category ‘‘supermarket system’’ if the 

refrigerant is supplied on the same 

multi-compressor circuit used to cool 

food elsewhere in the store or within the 

end-use category ‘‘remote condensing 

unit’’ if only a one- or two-compressor 

system is used (generally dedicated to 

just the individual walk-in cooler or 

freezer). 

AHRI further notes that both 

supermarket systems and remote 

condensing units can be connected to 

various types of display cases designed 

to maintain products at various 

temperatures, often subdivided as 

‘‘medium-temperature’’—roughly 

between 32 °F (0 °C) and 41 °F (5 °C)— 

and ‘‘low-temperature’’—roughly 

between ¥40 °F (¥40 °C) and 32 °F 

(0 °C). EPA notes that within the SNAP 

end-uses and categories described 

above, no distinction is currently made 

based on application temperature 

(medium or low) and so the decisions 

finalized in today’s rule apply to all 

equipment fitting within the 

supermarket and remote condensing 

units end-use categories as described; 

however, based on comments received, 

within the stand-alone equipment enduse category a distinction is made 

between equipment designed for ‘‘low’’ 

temperatures and other equipment. 

During the comment period on the 

proposed rule, we received additional 

questions and comments about whether 

certain types of equipment were 

included in the end-uses addressed in 

this action. We are clarifying here that 

specific types of equipment used in the 

food industry do not fall within the enduses and end-use categories affected by 

this rule: Blast chillers, ice making 

machines not connected to a 

supermarket system, very low 

temperature refrigeration, and certain 

food and beverage dispensing systems. 

A ‘‘blast chiller’’ or ‘‘blast freezer’’ is 

a type of equipment in which cold air 

is supplied and circulated rapidly to a 

food product, generally to quickly cool 

or freeze a product before damage or 

spoilage can occur. Such units are 

typically used in industrial settings 

(e.g., at a factory or on a large fishcatching vessel) and fall under the 

SNAP end-use ‘‘Industrial Process 

Refrigeration’’ and hence are not subject 

to this rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Ice makers’’ are machines designed 

for the sole purpose of producing ice, in 

various sizes and shapes, and with 

different retrieval mechanisms (e.g., 

dispensers or self-retrieval from bins). 

Under SNAP, ‘‘commercial ice 

machines’’ are identified as a separate 

end-use not part of the retail food 

refrigeration end-use (e.g., not a ‘‘standalone’’ unit). See e.g., 59 FR 13070 

(March 18, 1994) where EPA clearly 

designated ‘‘commercial ice machines’’ 

as a separate end-use than ‘‘retail food 

refrigeration.’’ Thus, both self-contained 

ice makers, as well as ice-making units 

solely connected via piping to a 

dedicated remote condenser, do not fall 

under the retail food refrigeration enduse and hence are not subject to this 

rule. In contrast, ice-making units that 

are connected to a supermarket system 

are subject to this rule. For instance, if 

a supermarket rack system supplies 

refrigerant to a unit to make ice, such as 

for use in meat and seafood storage, 

display and sales, and that refrigerant 

and compressor rack are part of a larger 

circuit that also provides cooling for 

other products in the store, the entire 

system would be classified as a 

‘‘supermarket system’’ and hence would 

be subject to today’s rule. EPA would 

like to clarify that since remote 

condensing ice makers designed solely 

to be connected to a supermarket remote 

rack are not sold or manufactured with 

a condensing unit, they do not meet the 

definition of automatic commercial ice 

maker used by DOE in the automatic 

commercial ice maker energy 

conservation standards. 

Several commenters, including Master 

Bilt Products and Thermo Fisher, 

identified products they manufacture to 

reach temperatures of ¥50°F (¥46°C) or 

even lower. These products fit under the 

end-use ‘‘very low temperature 

refrigeration’’ and hence are not covered 

by this rule. EPA also notes that it 

recently found R–170 (ethane) as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the very low temperature refrigeration 

end-use. (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453) 

Other commenters, such as Emerson, 

HC Duke/Electro-Freeze, and United 

Technologies, mentioned equipment 

designed to make or process cold food 

and beverages that are dispensed via a 

nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream 

machines, ‘‘slushy’’ iced beverage 

dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers. 

Such equipment can be self-contained 

or can be connected via piping to a 

dedicated condensing unit located 

elsewhere. EPA does not consider this 

equipment to fall under either the 

‘‘stand-alone’’ or ‘‘remote condensing 

unit’’ categories of retail food 

refrigeration. While our definition of 

retail food refrigeration includes ‘‘cold 

storage cases designed to chill food for 

commercial sale,’’ these units generally 

do more than just store food or 

beverages. For instance, United 

Technologies states such equipment 

‘‘transform[s] a liquid product into a 

frozen beverage or confection with the 

incorporation of air to provide 

uniformity and specific customer 

requirements. These products are 

transformed and manufactured within 

the equipment, held in a frozen state 

and ultimately dispensed into a serving 

vessel that is provided to an end 

customer.’’ Hence, these types of 

products are in a category separate from 

the three ‘‘retail food refrigeration’’ enduse categories addressed in today’s rule. 

We also received several comments 

and questions regarding energy 

conservation standards established by 

DOE and how the equipment subject to 

this rule is also subject to the DOE 

standards. While EPA is not making any 

decisions on the applicability of the 

DOE standards to specific equipment, 

we see that at least three such standards 

and perhaps more apply to types of 

equipment that are also subject to this 

rule. These three standards are titled 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

(79 FR 17725; March 28, 2014), Energy 

Conservation Standards for Walk-In 

Coolers and Freezers (79 FR 32049; June 

3, 2014) and Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or 

Canned Beverage Vending Machines (74 

FR 44914; August 31, 2009). These are 

referred to in this rule using shortened 

names or a generic name such as ‘‘DOE 

Standards.’’ 

The Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment Standards have an effective 

date of May 27, 2014 and a compliance 

date of March 27, 2017. The Walk-In 

Coolers and Freezers Standards have an 

effective date of August 4, 2014 and a 

compliance date of June 5, 2017. The 

Beverage Vending Machines Standards 

have effective dates of October 30, 2009 

and August 31, 2011 and a compliance 

date of August 31, 2012. DOE posted a 

notice of a public meeting and 

availability of the Framework document 

for an expected proposed rule to amend 

the standards for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines (78 

FR 33262; June 4, 2013). Material in the 

docket for that action indicate DOE’s 

plans for a final rule with a compliance 

date three years later (see EERE–2013– 

BT–STD–0022). 

EPA’s review indicates that 

equipment designated in the 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

Standards may fall under the 

supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, and stand-alone 

equipment end-use categories. 

Specifically, equipment classes 

designated in the DOE Standard as 

XXXX.RC.T, where XXXX is the 

equipment class, RC specifies a remote 

condensing operating mode code, and T 

indicates a rating temperature (e.g., M 

and L for medium and low temperature, 

respectively), may fall under either the 

supermarket system or remote 

condensing unit end-use category, 

depending on how that equipment is 

applied. In addition, equipment classes 

designated as XXXX.SC.T, where SC 

specifies a self-contained operating 

mode code, may fall under the standalone equipment end-use category. 

EPA’s review indicates that 

equipment designated in the Walk-In 

Cooler and Freezers Standards may fall 

under the supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, and stand-alone 

equipment end-use categories. 

Specifically, equipment within the class 

descriptor Multiplex Condensing (either 

Medium or Low Temperature) may fall 

under the supermarket systems end-use 

category, i.e., if such a walk-in cooler or 

freezer utilizes refrigerant from a larger, 

multi-compressor (rack) system. In 

addition, equipment within the class 

descriptor Dedicated System, Outdoor 

System (regardless of temperature and 

capacity) may fall under the remote 

condensing units end-use category, i.e., 

if connected to a remote condensing 

unit and not integrated into a larger, 

multi-compressor (rack) system. 

Furthermore, equipment falling in the 

class descriptor Dedicated System, 

Indoor System (regardless of 

temperature and capacity) may fall in 

the stand-alone equipment end-use 

category, i.e., if the equipment is 

manufactured and fully charged with 

refrigerant at the factory. 

EPA’s review indicates that 

equipment covered by the Beverage 

Vending Machine Standards (including 

Class A, Class B and Combination 

vending machines) falls under the 

vending machines end-use. 

In all cases, the DOE Standards apply 

to new equipment, not retrofitted 

equipment. Also, any foam used in such 

systems or components that are also 

covered (e.g. various panels and doors 

within the Walk-In Coolers and Freezers 

Standard), may fall under the rigid PU 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panel end-use and be affected by the 

changes of status discussed in section 

V.D below. 

(c) The Terms ‘‘New’’ and ‘‘Retrofit’’ 

and How They Apply to Servicing 

Several commenters, including the 

Food Marketing Institute (FMI), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42903 

60A chemical or mixture that is not the same as 

that used before the retrofit, typically denoted by 

different ‘‘R’’ numbers under ASHRAE Standard 34. 

Supermarket Company ABC, and 

Hussmann sought clarification of the 

terms ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘retrofit’’ and how 

these terms might affect store remodels 

and the use of cases or other equipment 

that in the future are added to or 

replaced for existing cases or 

equipment. 

For the refrigeration and airconditioning sector, the SNAP program 

has, since the inception of the program, 

made a distinction between new 

equipment and retrofitted equipment. In 

some cases, a particular refrigerant is 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions only in new equipment, not 

in retrofits. In other cases, a particular 

refrigerant is only acceptable in retrofits, 

not new equipment. In the NPRM, EPA 

evaluated whether to change the status 

of refrigerant substitutes for retrofits 

separate from its evaluation of whether 

to change the status of refrigerant 

substitutes for new equipment in each 

of the four end-uses and categories— 

supermarket systems, remote 

condensing units, stand-alone 

equipment, and vending machines— 

addressed. Since the inception of the 

SNAP program, EPA has made separate 

determinations for refrigerants used in 

‘‘new’’ equipment and as a ‘‘retrofit’’ to 

existing equipment. We are likewise 

today making separate decisions for new 

and retrofit equipment within the retail 

food refrigeration and vending machines 

end-uses. 

EPA uses the term ‘‘retrofit’’ to 

indicate the use of a refrigerant in an 

appliance (such as a supermarket 

system) that was designed for and 

originally operated using a different 

refrigerant 60 and does not use the term 

to apply to upgrades to existing 

equipment where the refrigerant is not 

changed. For instance, we drew this 

distinction when we found R–290 

acceptable for use in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units) subject to use conditions (76 FR 

78832; December 20, 2011) stating 

‘‘none of these substitutes may be used 

as a conversion or ‘retrofit’ refrigerant 

for existing equipment designed for 

other refrigerants’’ (40 CFR part 82, 

subpart G, appendix R). Some 

alternative refrigerant providers 

describe their retrofit products as ‘‘dropins’’ but EPA does not use that term 

interchangeably with retrofit (see 79 FR 

64270). We recognize that some changes 

typically would be required for 

equipment to use a refrigerant other 

than the one for which it was designed. 

In many cases, lubricants need to be 

changed (for instance, changing from a 

mineral oil to a polyolester lubricant 

when retrofitting from a CFC to an 

HFC). Due to different performance 

characteristics, other changes may need 

to occur when retrofitting, such as 

adjustments to or replacement of 

thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs) 

and filter-driers. In addition, gaskets 

and other materials may need to be 

replaced due to different compatibility 

properties of the different refrigerants. 

Such changes could occur as part of 

maintenance as well as during a retrofit. 

In addition to drawing a distinction 

between new and retrofit for the SNAP 

program, EPA also included a 

distinction between new and existing 

equipment in its regulations 

implementing the HCFC phaseout and 

use restrictions in section 605 of the 

CAA. As of January 1, 2010, use of 

HFC–22 and HFC–142b was largely 

restricted to use as a refrigerant in 

equipment manufactured before that 

date (40 CFR 82.15(g)(2); 74 FR 66412). 

Similarly, as of January 1, 2015, use of 

other HCFCs not previously controlled 

was largely restricted to use as a 

refrigerant in equipment manufactured 

before January 1, 2020 (40 CFR 

82.15(g)(4); 74 FR 66412). In that 

context, EPA defined ‘‘manufactured,’’ 

for an appliance, as ‘‘the date upon 

which the appliance’s refrigerant circuit 

is complete, the appliance can function, 

the appliance holds a full refrigerant 

charge, and the appliance is ready for 

use for its intended purposes’’ (40 CFR 

82.3, 82.302). We provided further 

explanations and example scenarios of 

how the HCFC phaseout and use 

restrictions apply to supermarkets in the 

fact sheet Supermarket Industry Q & A 

on R–22 Use (www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/ 

phaseout/Supermarket_Q&A_for_R22.html). 

Under today’s rule, existing systems 

may continue to be serviced and 

maintained for the useful life of that 

equipment using the original refrigerant, 

whereas new systems (including new 

supermarket systems) manufactured 

after the change of status date will not 

be allowed to use refrigerants for which 

the status has changed to unacceptable. 

Consistent with the definition in 

subparts A and I of part 82, quoted 

above, EPA will consider a system to be 

new for purposes of these SNAP 

determinations as of the date upon 

which the refrigerant circuit is 

complete, the system can function, the 

system holds a full refrigerant charge, 

and the system is ready for use for its 

intended purposes. As explained in the 

fact sheet referenced above, a 

supermarket may undergo an expansion 

and continue to use the existing 

refrigerant ‘‘if there is sufficient cooling 

capacity within the system to support 

the expansion’’ as EPA would consider 

that in such a situation ‘‘the store is not 

changing the intended purpose of the 

system.’’ As pointed out by FMI, the 

replacement of existing display cases 

with ones that operate at a higher 

evaporator temperature, but still provide 

the same purpose of maintaining 

products at required temperatures, is 

one way in which a system may be 

remodeled without changing the 

intended purpose of the system. On the 

other hand, if a supermarket remodel or 

expansion changes the intended 

purpose of the original equipment, for 

instance by adding additional cases, 

compressors, and refrigerant that were 

not supported by the original 

compressor system, EPA would 

consider the expanded system a ‘‘new’’ 

system. In that situation, a supermarket 

would not be allowed to use a 

refrigerant that was listed as 

unacceptable as of the date that new 

system was expanded or remodeled, 

even if the system had been using that 

refrigerant before the expansion or 

remodel. 

2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (supermarket systems)? 

The change of status determinations 

for retail food refrigeration (supermarket 

systems) are summarized in the 

following table: 

TABLE 4—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (SUPERMARKETS SYSTEMS) 

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems) 

(new).

HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, 

R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

61HFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

62Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test 

new R404A ‘‘drop-in.’’ October 5, 2014. Available 

online at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/

spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404a-drop-in/. 

TABLE 4—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (SUPERMARKETS SYSTEMS)—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems) 

(retrofit).

R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016. 

(a) New Supermarket Systems 

For new supermarket systems, EPA 

had proposed to change the status, as of 

January 1, 2016, for nine HFC blends 

and HFC–227ea to unacceptable: The 

HFC blends are R–404A, R–407B, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

428A, R–434A, and R–507A. In today’s 

final rule, we are changing the status of 

these ten refrigerants to unacceptable in 

new supermarkets as of January 1, 2017 

(i.e., one year later than proposed), 

based on information the Agency 

received concerning timelines for 

planning new stores; this information 

implied that contractual arrangements 

for specific equipment purchases could 

have already been in place at the time 

the proposal was issued but that new 

systems will not be completed by 

January 1, 2016. A January 1, 2017, 

status change date will address this 

concern. We note that systems not ready 

for use by January 1, 2017 would not be 

able to use a substitute listed as 

unacceptable as of that date. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of other refrigerants are 

listed as acceptable for new supermarket 

systems: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, 

IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/

134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–407A, 

R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R– 

417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–424A, R– 

426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–448A, R– 

449A, R–450A, R–513A, R–744, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, THR–02, and 

THR–03.61 In addition, R–717 is listed 

as acceptable in new supermarkets 

when used as the primary refrigerant in 

a secondary loop system. 

Several of these alternatives, such as 

R–407A, R–407F, and R–744, are in 

widespread use today in supermarket 

systems in the United States. EPA 

considers this widespread use as 

indicative of the availability of these 

acceptable alternatives. HFC/HFO 

blends are also entering the market. For 

instance, R–448A and R–449A are being 

used in supermarkets in the United 

States and R–450A is in use in a 

supermarket in Spain.62 The producer 

of R–450A, Honeywell, indicated in 

their comments that supply of this 

acceptable alternative was ‘‘soon to 

become available.’’ They indicated that 

they have invested in their U.S. facility 

‘‘to ensure high-volume manufacturing 

capability for HFO–1234ze(E),’’ one 

component of R–450A. The other 

component, HFC–34a, is widely 

available from multiple producers and 

refrigerant suppliers. Honeywell noted 

that ‘‘commercial quantities of HFO– 

1234yf and HFO–1234ze [are] available 

today.’’ Likewise, DuPont indicated an 

increasing supply of HFO–1234yf, a 

component in a number of acceptable 

refrigerants for new supermarket 

systems, specifically R–448A, R–449A 

and R–513A, amongst other applications 

discussed below. 

In the preamble to the NPRM, 79 FR 

at 46144, EPA provided information on 

the risk to human health and the 

environment presented by the 

alternatives that are being found 

unacceptable as compared with other 

available alternatives. In addition, EPA 

listed as acceptable R–450A on October 

21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included 

information on its risk to human health 

and the environment. Concurrently with 

this rule, EPA is also listing R–448A, R– 

449A and R–513A as acceptable in this 

end-use category and is including 

information on their risk to human 

health and the environment. A technical 

support document that provides the 

additional Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 

flammability) for these alternatives may 

be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, 

the other available substitutes all have 

zero ODP and have GWPs ranging from 

0 to 2,630. The refrigerants we are 

finding unacceptable through this action 

also have zero ODP, but they have 

GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. With 

the exception of R–717, the other 

available refrigerants have toxicity 

lower than or comparable to the 

refrigerants whose listing status is 

changing from acceptable to 

unacceptable. Also, with the exception 

of R–717, the other available 

refrigerants, as well as those that we are 

finding unacceptable, are not 

flammable. R–717 is classified as B2L 

(higher toxicity, lower flammability, low 

flame speed) under the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34–2013. However, since it is 

acceptable only for use as the primary 

refrigerant (i.e., the one housed in the 

machine room and limited-access 

condensers) in secondary loops systems, 

potential exposure is limited to 

technicians and operators who are 

expected to have had training on its safe 

use. Because of this limited access, the 

fact that R–717 has been used 

successfully as a refrigerant for over 100 

years, and because building codes and 

OSHA regulations often apply 

specifically to the use of R–717, EPA 

previously determined that in this enduse the risk posed with regard to 

toxicity and flammability is not 

significantly greater than for other 

available refrigerants or for the 

refrigerants we are listing as 

unacceptable. Some of the refrigerant 

blends listed as acceptable, as well as 

some of the substitutes that we are 

finding unacceptable include small 

amounts (up to 3.4% by mass) of VOC 

such as R–600 (butane) and R–600a 

(isobutane). These amounts are small, 

and EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants show that even when used 

neat (i.e., as the sole refrigerant, not as 

a component within a blend) they are 

not expected to contribute significantly 

to ground level ozone formation (ICF, 

2014e). In the original actions listing 

these refrigerants as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions, 

EPA concluded none of these 

refrigerants pose significantly greater 

risk than for the refrigerants that are not 

or do not contain VOC. Because the 

risks other than GWP are not 

significantly different for the other 

available alternatives than for those we 

proposed to list as unacceptable and 

because the GWP for the refrigerants we 

proposed to list as unacceptable is 

significantly higher and thus poses 

significantly greater risk, we are listing 

the following refrigerants as 

unacceptable: HFC–227ea, R–404A, R– 

407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A, R–434A, and R–507A. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42905 

63HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

64The GreenChill Advanced Refrigeration 

Partnership is a voluntary program with food 

retailers to reduce refrigerant emissions and 

decrease their impact on the ozone layer and 

climate change. See 

(2) When will the status change? 

As explained here and in our 

responses to comments, EPA is 

finalizing a change of status date for 

new supermarket systems of January 1, 

2017. 

EPA noted in the NPRM, and multiple 

commenters echoed, that supermarket 

equipment using some of the acceptable 

alternatives, notably HFC–134a, R– 

407A, R–407C, R–407F and R–744, is 

available today and has been used in 

supermarkets for several years. While 

some, but not all, manufacturers argued 

more time was warranted to develop 

additional equipment and address 

performance issues, they did not 

provide adequate justification or 

specificity on when such equipment 

would be available or when such issues 

would be addressed. 

A supermarket system manufacturer 

believed time was needed to develop 

contractor training materials. While EPA 

agrees that training is valuable, we note 

below that such training is already 

available and, given that acceptable 

alternatives have already been 

implemented in new supermarkets, we 

do not see the need to delay our 

proposed status change date for new 

equipment in this end-use category 

more than one year. 

However, one system manufacturer 

noted that supermarket plans are 

developed in time frames that could 

hinder the proposed status change date 

of January 1, 2016. EPA understands 

that such planning is necessary and we 

are establishing a status change date of 

January 1, 2017, to accommodate those 

end users who have already planned 

changes to their systems or may have 

plans to manufacture a new system (e.g., 

for a new store) but that may not have 

such systems operational in the period 

between the time this rule is issued and 

January 1, 2016. As noted earlier, this 

change in the proposed status change 

date will affect those end users who are 

currently in the midst of planning for a 

new system or a change to their existing 

system. A new system not ready for use 

by January 1, 2017, would not be able 

to use a refrigerant listed as 

unacceptable as of that date. 

(b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems 

For retrofit supermarket systems, EPA 

proposed to list, as of January 1, 2016, 

nine HFC blends as unacceptable: R– 

404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and 

R–507A. In today’s final rule we are 

finding these refrigerants unacceptable 

in retrofit supermarkets as of July 20, 

2016. 

Consistent with the proposal, this 

action does not apply to servicing 

equipment designed to use these nine 

refrigerants or servicing equipment that 

was retrofitted to use those refrigerants 

before the July 20, 2016, status change 

date. For example, supermarket systems 

designed for use with or retrofitted to R– 

404A or R–507A prior to July 20, 2016, 

may continue to operate and to be 

serviced using those refrigerants. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of other refrigerants are 

listed as acceptable for retrofit 

supermarket systems: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–448A, R–449A, R–450A, R– 

513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02, 

and THR–03.63 A technical support 

document that provides the additional 

Federal Register citations concerning 

data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, 

GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 

these alternatives may be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 

2015d). 

Several of the alternatives that remain 

acceptable are in use today in the 

United States for supermarket system 

retrofits. While blends such as R–407A 

and R–407F have become the norm, 

GreenChill partners also report use of 

other refrigerants as retrofits in 

supermarket systems.64 Also, as noted 

earlier, R–450A was used to retrofit a 

supermarket system in Spain (Cooling 

Post, 2014). 

In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA 

provided information on the risk to 

human health and the environment 

presented by the alternatives that are 

being found unacceptable and those that 

remain acceptable. In addition, EPA 

listed R–450A as acceptable on October 

21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) and included 

information on its risk to human health 

and the environment. Concurrently with 

this rule, EPA is also listing as 

acceptable R–448A, R–449A and R– 

513A and including information on 

their risk to human health and the 

environment. As discussed above, the 

producers of the substitutes that will 

remain acceptable do not expect supply 

problems. In summary, the refrigerants 

listed above that remain acceptable have 

zero ODP as do those that we are finding 

unacceptable. The refrigerants 

remaining acceptable have GWPs 

ranging from below 100 to 2,630, lower 

than the GWPs of the nine blends we are 

finding unacceptable, which have GWPs 

ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. All of the 

refrigerants remaining acceptable have 

toxicity lower than or comparable to the 

refrigerants whose listing status is 

changing from acceptable to 

unacceptable. None of the refrigerants 

that remain acceptable or those that are 

being listed as unacceptable are 

flammable. Some of the refrigerant 

blends that remain acceptable and some 

of those that we are finding 

unacceptable include small amounts (up 

to 3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R– 

600 (butane) and R–600a (isobutane). 

Because these amounts are small, and 

EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants shows that even when used 

neat (100% by mass), they are not 

expected to contribute significantly to 

ground level ozone formation (ICF, 

2014e), these blends would also not 

contribute significantly to ground level 

ozone formation. Because the risks other 

than GWP are not significantly different 

for the other available alternatives than 

for those we proposed to list as 

unacceptable, and because the GWP for 

the refrigerants we proposed to list as 

unacceptable is significantly higher and 

thus poses significantly greater risk, we 

are listing the following refrigerants as 

unacceptable: R–404A, R–407B, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

428A, R–434A, and R–507A. 

EPA regulations have eliminated or 

will eliminate by 2020 the production 

and import of HCFC–22. These and 

other regulations also affect end users 

who are using CFC–12, R–502, and 

several HCFC-containing blends such as 

R–401A, R–402A and R–408A. 

Therefore, we believe that the impact of 

this action addressing retrofits will 

primarily affect those owners who are 

faced with the choice of continuing to 

operate systems with a refrigerant that 

has been phased out of production and 

import or to switch to a refrigerant listed 

as acceptable for retrofit at the time the 

retrofit occurs. 

Many retail chains maintain their own 

stockpile of HCFC–22, for instance by 

recovering from stores that are 

decommissioned or retrofitted and using 

such supplies to service stores that 

continue to operate with HCFC–22. In 

addition, over four millions pounds of 

HCFC–22 has been reclaimed every year 

since at least 2000 and over seven 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

65EPA, 2012a. The latest data on refrigerant 

reclamation can be found on EPA’s Web site at: 

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

recsum_merged.pdf. 

66For example, see CCAC, 2012. 

67They addressed the change of status date for R– 

404A and R–507A with regard to stand-alone units 

but not supermarket systems. 

million pounds every year since 2006.65

Equipment operating with ODS 

refrigerants may continue to do so given 

the supply of such materials in 

stockpiles and through the reclaim 

market. Thus, owners have the option to 

continue to operate this equipment 

through its useful life with the 

refrigerant they are using, such as 

HCFC–22. Regardless of the continued 

supply of HCFC–22 and other ODS 

refrigerants, we believe that the majority 

of retrofits are planned for reasons other 

than the supply of the refrigerant 

currently in use; for instance, owners 

may decide to retrofit when upgrading 

to more energy efficient equipment or 

during planned maintenance overhauls 

of their stores. 

We see that many retrofits are already 

directed towards lower-GWP blends 

such as R–407A and R–407F, which are 

widely available and remain acceptable 

for such use under today’s rule, and not 

those of the refrigerants whose status 

will change to unacceptable under 

today’s rule. These two refrigerants (R– 

407A and R–407F), other available HFC 

blends, the additional HFC/HFO options 

that EPA recently listed as acceptable, 

and other HFC/HFO blends that are 

being evaluated by chemical producers 

and equipment manufacturers, as well 

as the option of continuing to operate 

with HCFC–22, are sufficient to meet 

the various features—such as capacity, 

efficiency, materials compatibility, cost 

and supply—that affect the choice of a 

retrofit refrigerant.66

(2) When will the status change? 

As explained here and in our 

responses to comments, EPA is 

establishing a change of status date for 

retrofit supermarkets of July 20, 2016. 

In the NPRM and above, EPA pointed 

out that retrofits of supermarkets using 

acceptable alternatives are already 

occurring. Supermarket Company ABC 

indicated that their experience with the 

use of R–407A in retrofits indicates the 

availability and viability of it and other 

alternatives. FMI similarly indicated 

that many of its members have already 

stopped performing retrofits with 

refrigerants we are finding 

unacceptable. EPA considers these 

comments directly from the 

supermarket retailer to indicate that 

adequate performance can be achieved 

using refrigerants that will remain listed 

as acceptable. 

As indicated in section V.C.1.c above, 

retrofits may require various changes to 

the existing equipment, such as 

different lubricants, new materials such 

as gaskets and filter driers, and 

adjustments to expansion valves. These 

changes include readily available 

materials and common refrigeration 

practices. Such retrofits to acceptable 

alternatives are already occurring, and 

the option to continue to operate and 

service existing systems remains; 

however, EPA received comment that 

users may plan a ‘‘new store layout’’ in 

advance. While not specifically 

referencing retrofits, a new layout of an 

existing store may include the 

retrofitting of the existing supermarket 

system. Therefore, EPA is modifying the 

change of status date to provide a full 

year from publication of the final rule to 

ensure that any supermarkets that may 

have retrofits underway using a 

refrigerant that will no longer be 

acceptable will be able to complete 

those retrofits ahead of the change of 

status date. While EPA did not receive 

specific comments on the time to 

complete retrofits that are underway, it 

is our understanding that any ongoing 

retrofits can be completed within this 

timeframe . 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments 

on retail food refrigeration (supermarket 

systems)? 

Comment: Several commenters 

commented on the proposed January 1, 

2016 change of status date for new 

supermarket systems. One supermarket 

owner, Supermarket Company ABC, 

specifically supported the proposed 

2016 date for both new and retrofit 

systems. An industry organization 

representing supermarkets, FMI, stated 

that ‘‘a majority of our members have 

already voluntarily and proactively 

discontinued the use of R–404A, R–507 

and R–422D for new systems and as a 

retrofit refrigerant.’’ Two environmental 

organizations, NRDC and IGSD, 

supported the proposed 2016 date for 

both new and retrofitted supermarket 

systems. One manufacturer of 

supermarket systems, Hillphoenix, 

supported the change of status date of 

January 1, 2016, for HFC–227ea, R– 

407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A and R–434A in new and 

retrofit supermarket systems.67

Several other manufacturers of 

supermarket equipment, including 

Hussmann, Master-Bilt, Lennox, and 

Zero Zone, and an association 

representing such manufacturers— 

AHRI—suggested later dates for the 

change of status. Hussmann suggested a 

change of status date of 2018 for new 

equipment as store layouts of their 

customers are planned ‘‘up to three 

years in advance.’’ Another 

manufacturer, Lennox, requested three 

years from the date of any final rule, a 

position supported by AHRI, which also 

noted ‘‘alternatives are available and 

manufacturers have started re-designing 

products to minimize or eliminate the 

use of high GWP refrigerants.’’ MasterBilt indicated that under the proposed 

January 1, 2016, change of status date 

for new supermarket systems, they 

would convert to HFC–134a and R– 

407A, but would have to address issues 

of energy efficiency and reliability. They 

believed ‘‘these HFCs will also be 

banned as soon as lower GWP 

alternatives are available’’ and therefore 

did not offer a long-term solution. 

Instead, they stated blends with even 

lower GWPs than the ones remaining 

acceptable would be available in 1–3 

years and requested a minimum of 3 

years from then to develop products. 

Zero Zone indicated that it has products 

available for R–407A and R–407C, but 

needs time to address performance 

issues. 

Response: Several commenters 

indicated that many stores were already 

using alternatives other than the ones 

we proposed to list as unacceptable. 

While two manufacturers of equipment, 

Zero Zone and Lennox, and AHRI 

advocated for a later change of status 

date, they also indicated that products 

using refrigerants that will remain 

acceptable are already in use. 

Hillphoenix and Hussmann, both of 

whom offer supermarket systems with 

such refrigerants, and Supermarket 

Company ABC and FMI, who have used 

such products, did not indicate that 

there were performance, efficiency or 

reliability issues when using R–407A, 

R–407C or R–407F in supermarket 

systems. 

We recognize the concern raised by 

Hussmann regarding store layout plans 

for new systems. Store design plans are 

generally developed well in advance of 

the physical change-over or 

construction, because of several 

different factors related to construction 

and installation as well as the need to 

address any commissioning, 

performance optimization or start-up 

procedures. Hussmann suggested a 

change of status date of 2018 to allow 

up to three years for design. Hussmann 

did not indicate if the ‘‘up to three years 

in advance’’ for planning a new design 

was a typical planning cycle or a rare 

maximum, nor did they indicate that 

any particular customer currently is in 

the planning stage but will not have 

equipment designed to use a refrigerant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42907 

68See www.hillphoenixlc.com/coursecurriculum/refrigeration-systems/. 69EPA, 2011b. GreenChill Best Practices 

Guidelines, Commercial Refrigeration Retrofits. 

August 2011. This document is accessible at 

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

documents/retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf. 

we are listing as unacceptable 

operational until 2018. We further note 

that the NPRM was proposed on August 

6, 2014, and thus supermarkets were on 

notice at that time that the refrigerants 

currently listed as acceptable would 

possibly be unacceptable for use as of 

January 2016. In order to address 

concerns about those end users who 

began planning prior to the proposal, we 

are establishing a change of status date 

one year later than proposed for new 

supermarket systems and July 20, 2016 

for retrofits. This will provide those end 

users who were in the planning stage 

prior to the time of the proposal over 

two years after issuance of the proposal 

to ensure new supermarket systems are 

in place and operational and likewise 

approximately two years to complete 

any retrofits. 

Comment: Lennox noted that 

supermarket system designs exist for R– 

407 series refrigerants, but stated that 

manufacturers ‘‘need at least 3 years to 

develop complete product lines, 

technical literature and contractor 

training materials.’’ Lennox did not 

indicate specifically how much time 

was needed to complete their 

equipment development. Zero Zone Inc. 

comments that the industry needs at 

least six years to make a smooth 

complete transition away from R–404A, 

R–507A, and HFC–134a; they indicated 

this time was needed ‘‘to eliminate the 

performance issues and design product 

that uses these refrigerants in the most 

energy efficiency manner.’’ In its 

comments regarding supermarket 

systems, AHRI indicated low-GWP 

alternatives are available and stated 

research on other, lower-GWP 

refrigerants was underway but requested 

‘‘a minimum of 3 years’’ to transition. 

AHRI contended that ‘‘manufacturers 

have started re-designing products to 

minimize or eliminate the use of high 

GWP refrigerants’’ but that 

‘‘manufactures need more time’’ on ‘‘the 

re-design effort that started [a] few years 

ago.’’ In general comments not specific 

to the three retail food refrigeration enduse categories addressed in the 

proposal, AHRI also indicated that ‘‘a 

typical design cycle takes an average 7 

years from start to finish’’ for nonflammable alternatives. Supermarket 

Company ABC referenced the NPRM 

discussion of new supermarket systems 

(79 FR 46144) and stated that their 

‘‘own experience and testing with 

R134a, CO2 and the R–407 series of 

refrigerants have demonstrated to our 

satisfaction that implementable 

alternatives to R–404A and R–507A are 

available to meet that time frame’’ of 

January 1, 2016. 

Response: The commenters have not 

provided sufficient information to 

support that alternatives will not be 

available for several years because of 

technical constraints. As indicated in 

the comments from AHRI, Lennox, and 

Zero Zone, manufacturers have been 

working for the past several years to 

design systems using low GWP 

alternatives and as FMI noted many 

supermarkets are already choosing to 

use them. EPA noted in the proposal 

that R–407A systems have already 

become a norm for supermarkets and 

Supermarket Company ABC indicated it 

was using R–407A in its comments. In 

fact, EPA notes that the amount of R– 

404A in use from partners participating 

in EPA’s GreenChill partnership 

program reporting in 2012 and 2013 

increased only 1.3%, while the amount 

of R–407A in use increased 24%. Hence, 

we do not agree that a several year delay 

in the change of status date is needed to 

accommodate design of systems. 

With respect to contractor training, 

EPA agrees proper education and 

training is important, and we note that 

there are already many manufacturers 

and suppliers who have been 

conducting such training. For example, 

Hillphoenix, a manufacturer of 

supermarket systems and other 

equipment affected by this rule, 

operates a learning center with courses 

available including several on R–744 

equipment.68 Learning material is also 

available from EPA’s GreenChill 

program, including for instance the 

GreenChill retrofit guidelines,69 which 

contain material on refrigerants R–407A, 

R–407F and R–427A, all of which 

remain acceptable in retrofit 

supermarket systems. For supermarket 

systems, we note that alternatives such 

as R–407A have been in the market and 

have been used successfully for many 

years. Other alternatives, such as R– 

448A, R–449A, R–450A and R–513A, 

are nonflammable and operate with 

similar characteristics to HFC–134a or 

R–404A, and hence should require only 

minimal extra training. EPA believes the 

January 1, 2017, change of status date 

for new supermarket systems, will allow 

technicians that focus on particular enduses or end-use categories to obtain the 

training they need and likewise for 

those that cover all end-uses and enduse categories to build their skills across 

those end-uses over time. We disagree 

that a need to develop complete 

technical lines and technical literature 

are technical challenges that limit the 

availability of refrigerants for new 

supermarket systems beyond January 

2017. 

3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (remote condensing units)? 

The change of status determinations 

for retail food refrigeration (remote 

condensing units) is summarized in the 

following table: 

TABLE 5—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION (REMOTE CONDENSING UNITS) 

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units) 

(new).

HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, 

R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2018. 

Retail food refrigeration (remote condensing units) 

(retrofit).

R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016. 

(a) New Remote Condensing Units 

For new remote condensing units, 

EPA proposed to list, as of January 1, 

2016, nine HFC blends and HFC–227ea 

as unacceptable. The HFC blends are R– 

404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and 

R–507A. In today’s final rule, we are 

finding that same list of nine HFC 

blends and HFC–227ea as unacceptable 

as of January 1, 2018. The change from 

the proposal is in response to 

information provided by commenters 

concerning technical challenges with 

meeting the January 1, 2016, proposed 

date. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

70HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

71HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of other refrigerants are 

listed as acceptable for new remote 

condensing units: FOR12A, FOR12B, 

HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 

R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–437A, R–438A, R– 

448A, R–449A, R–450A, R–513A, R– 

744, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02, 

and THR–03.70 R–717 is acceptable in 

remote condensing units when used as 

the primary refrigerant in a secondary 

loop system. 

Some of these acceptable alternatives 

are currently in use in remote 

condensing unit systems in the United 

States, such as R–407C and R–407F. 

Others, such as R–744 and 

hydrocarbons, while not indicated as in 

use in the United States, are being used 

in limited demonstration trials in 

Europe and elsewhere. In addition, 

commenters have pointed out that 

testing of low-GWP HFC/HFO blends is 

underway; several of these HFC/HFO 

blends have been submitted to EPA for 

SNAP review in this end-use category 

and four are listed as acceptable. 

See section V.C.2.a.1 above for a 

summary of our comparative assessment 

of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, 

toxicity, flammability) for the 

refrigerants we are listing as 

unacceptable with the other available 

refrigerants. The refrigerants we are 

listing as unacceptable for new remote 

condensing units are the same as those 

we are listing unacceptable for new 

supermarket systems. Likewise, the 

other available refrigerants are the same 

for new remote condensing units as for 

new supermarket systems. For the same 

reasons as presented in section 2, EPA 

concludes that there are other 

refrigerants for use in new remote 

condensing units that pose lower overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment than the alternatives we 

are listing as unacceptable. 

(2) When will the status change? 

As explained here and in our 

responses to comments, EPA is 

establishing a change of status date for 

new remote condensing units of January 

1, 2018. 

Blends such as R–407A, R–407C and 

R–407F are technically viable options. 

We did not receive any comments 

suggesting that these or other 

alternatives that will remain acceptable 

could not be used in these systems. In 

fact, information in the docket to this 

rule supports the feasibility of these 

alternatives. For example, information 

in the Agency’s possession from a 

manufacturer of remote condensing 

units provides an energy efficiency 

analysis for R–407A as compared with 

R–404A in remote condensing units, 

with results ranging from 10% lower to 

1% higher in low-temperature 

equipment and 0% to 6% higher in 

medium-temperature equipment (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0184). For unit 

coolers, this information showed 

improved results of 4.3% to 13.3% in 

medium-temperature applications. 

While the low-temperature applications 

showed 3.6% to 6.7% decreases, it was 

noted this came ‘‘as the capacity 

increased;’’ hence, we expect 

adjustments to the equipment could 

improve the efficiency while still 

meeting the original capacity 

requirements. In addition, Honeywell 

indicated that R–448A and R–449A, 

which have been submitted to SNAP for 

review in this end-use, are undergoing 

extensive field trials and that R–448A is 

‘‘close to being qualified with numerous 

manufacturers,’’ indicating that 

manufacturers are developing 

equipment to use this alternative. 

DuPont indicates that R–449A (also 

referred to as DR–33 and XP40), which 

has been submitted to SNAP for review 

in this end-use, works well in their tests 

of a display case connected to a remote 

condensing unit. DuPont found that the 

energy consumption for this refrigerant 

in a remote condensing unit originally 

designed for R–404A was 3% to 4% less 

than R–404A in low-temperature tests 

and 8% to 12% less in mediumtemperature tests. 

Although there are technically viable 

alternatives, we recognize the testing 

and certification needs for this 

equipment. Compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards will be 

required on March 27, 2017 for 

commercial refrigeration equipment and 

on June 5, 2017 for walk-in coolers and 

freezers (see also section V.C.1.b above 

and V.C.7 below). Commenters noted 

the challenges with timing for designing 

products with acceptable alternatives 

and testing these products to meet the 

2017 DOE energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and for walk-in coolers and 

freezers. EPA agrees with the 

commenters that the challenge of 

meeting both this status change rule and 

the DOE standards creates a significant 

technical hurdle that would be difficult 

to overcome by a January 2016 change 

of status date. A January 1, 2018, change 

of status date for remote condensing 

units recognizes the time needed for 

redesign and testing to meet both 

regulatory obligations. 

(b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units 

For retrofit remote condensing units, 

EPA proposed to list, as of January 1, 

2016, nine HFC blends as unacceptable: 

R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, and 

R–507A. In today’s final rule, we are 

establishing a change of status date for 

these refrigerants of July 20, 2016. 

Consistent with the proposal, this 

action does not apply to servicing 

equipment designed to use these nine 

refrigerants or servicing equipment that 

was retrofitted to use those refrigerants 

before the January 1, 2018 status change 

date. For example, remote condensing 

units designed for use with or retrofitted 

to R–404A or R–507A prior to July 20, 

2016, are allowed to continue to operate 

and to be serviced using those 

refrigerants. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of other refrigerants are 

listed as acceptable for retrofitting 

remote condensing units: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–448A, R–449A, R–450A, R– 

513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–02, 

and THR–03.71

Unlike retrofits of supermarket 

systems, which are common, retrofits of 

remote condensing units are unusual. 

However, given that the operating 

conditions and requirements between 

supermarket systems and remote 

condensing units are generally similar, 

EPA believes blends such as R–407A, 

R–407C and R–407F are available 

options. 

See section V.C.2.b.1 above for a 

summary of our comparative assessment 

of the SNAP criteria (ODP, GWP, VOC, 

toxicity, flammability) for the 

refrigerants we are listing as 

unacceptable with the other available 

refrigerants. The refrigerants we are 

listing as unacceptable for retrofit 

remote condensing units are the same as 

those we are listing as unacceptable for 

retrofit supermarket systems. Likewise, 

the available alternatives for retrofit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42909 

remote condensing units are the same as 

those for retrofit supermarket systems. 

For the same reasons as presented in 

section V.C.2.b.1, EPA concludes that 

there are other refrigerants for use in 

retrofit remote condensing units that 

pose lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment than the 

alternatives we are listing as 

unacceptable. 

EPA regulations have eliminated or 

will eliminate by 2020 the production 

and import of HCFC–22. These and 

other regulations also affect end users 

who are using CFC–12, R–502, and 

several HCFC-containing blends such as 

R–401A, R–402A and R–408A. 

Therefore, we believe that the impact of 

this action addressing retrofits will 

primarily affect those owners who are 

faced with the choice of continuing to 

operate systems with a refrigerant that 

has been phased out of production and 

import or to switch to a refrigerant listed 

as acceptable for retrofit at the time the 

retrofit occurs. 

As noted in section V.2.b.1, millions 

of pounds of HCFC–22 are reclaimed 

every year, and this supply is available 

to remote condensing unit owners, 

operators and technicians, just as it is 

available for supermarket owners, 

operators and technicians. We also 

noted that many retail chains have 

maintained their own stockpile of 

HCFC–22, for instance by recovering 

from stores that are decommissioned or 

retrofitted and using such supplies to 

service stores that continue to operate 

with HCFC–22. This same strategy is 

possible for those who own or operate 

multiple facilities using remote 

condensing units. By establishing a 

change of status date of July 20, 2016, 

we are providing owners and operators 

of remote condensing units the 

opportunity to begin to address any 

HCFC–22 supply concerns they may 

have. Thus, owners have the option to 

continue to operate this equipment 

through its useful life with the 

refrigerant they are using, such as 

HCFC–22. 

Supermarket Company ABC indicated 

that they have used R–407A to retrofit 

HCFC–22 systems and that their 

experience indicates the availability and 

viability of this and other alternatives. 

The success of R–407A as a retrofit 

refrigerant, the other available HFC 

blends, the additional HFC/HFO options 

that EPA recently listed as acceptable, 

and the other HFC/HFO blends that are 

being evaluated by chemical producers 

and equipment manufacturers, as well 

as the option of continuing to operate 

with HCFC–22, are sufficient to meet 

the various features—such as capacity, 

efficiency, materials compatibility, cost 

and supply—that affect the choice of a 

retrofit refrigerant. 

(2) When will the status change? 

As explained here and in our 

response to comments, EPA is 

establishing a change of status date for 

retrofit remote condensing units of July 

20, 2016. 

We did not receive any comments 

suggesting that alternatives that remain 

acceptable could not be used in these 

systems. As noted above, Supermarket 

Company ABC indicated that they have 

had success using R–407A to retrofit 

HCFC–22 systems. Results from testing 

of remote condensing units with R– 

407A and R–449A are presented above 

in section V.C.3.a.2. Those results 

showed increased energy efficiency 

and/or increased capacity with those 

refrigerants, indicating that they are 

viable for both new and retrofit 

equipment. As indicated in section 

V.C.1.c above, retrofits may require 

various changes to the existing 

equipment, such as different lubricants, 

new materials such as gaskets and filter 

driers, and adjustments to expansion 

valves. These changes include readily 

available materials and common 

refrigeration practices. Such retrofits to 

acceptable alternatives are already 

occurring, and the option to continue to 

operate and service existing systems 

remains. However, as discussed in 

Section V.C.2.b.2 above, comments 

indicate that a ‘‘new store layout’’ could 

be planned or otherwise underway, and 

that such layout may include the 

retrofitting of existing remote 

condensing units to a refrigerant that 

will no longer be acceptable. Therefore, 

by providing one full year from the final 

rule’s publication, EPA is providing 

sufficient time for any such retrofits in 

this end-use category to occur as 

planned. 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments 

on retail food refrigeration (remote 

condensing units)? 

Comment: Two environmental 

organizations, NRDC and IGSD, urged 

EPA to maintain the proposed status 

change date of January 1, 2016, for new 

remote condensing units. Supermarket 

Company ABC stated that they did not 

oppose the January 1, 2016, change of 

status date for new remote condensing 

units. FMI, an industry organization 

representing supermarkets, a market 

segment that also utilizes remote 

condensing units, pointed out that ‘‘a 

majority of our members have already 

voluntarily and proactively 

discontinued the use of R–404A, R–507, 

and R–422D for new systems and as a 

retrofit refrigerant.’’ 

Many equipment manufacturers 

including: Hussmann; Continental 

Refrigerator; Nor-Lake; Master-Bilt 

Products; International Cold Storage, 

Crown Tonka, and ThermalRite WalkIns; Lennox; and Manitowoc requested 

later dates for the status change ranging 

from 2018 to 2025. In some cases the 

date requested applied to new 

equipment in other end-use categories 

as well as new remote condensing units. 

AHRI suggested a minimum of six years 

to transition. The North American 

Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers (NAFEM) and Howe 

Corporation submitted comments that 

were general rather than specific to any 

particular refrigeration end-use. Based 

on NAFEM’s membership and the 

products Howe discussed, EPA believes 

these comments apply to remote 

condensing units and stand-alone 

equipment. Howe proposed that the 

status of R–404A and R–507A change 

‘‘no sooner than year 2024’’ while 

NAFEM suggested a ten-year delay for 

all of the refrigeration end-uses 

addressed in the proposed rule and 

enumerated 14 tasks that they indicate 

are ‘‘necessary to safely introduce 

different/flammable refrigerants into the 

manufacturing process.’’ A separate 

comment from NAFEM listed five 

phases, totaling 10 to 12 years, to adopt 

hydrocarbon refrigerants but also stated 

that ‘‘in no case should any 

manufacturer be expected to transition 

prior to 2022.’’ These manufacturers and 

industry associations cited concerns 

over the availability of alternatives, the 

need to design and test products using 

those alternatives, as well as other 

concerns that we summarize and 

address in the Response to Comments 

Document that has been placed in the 

docket. Several manufacturers indicated 

that a January 1, 2016, change of status 

date would create significant difficulties 

in designing products with refrigerants 

that remain acceptable while also 

meeting the DOE energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and for walk-in coolers and 

freezers that are scheduled to become 

effective in 2017 (see also section 

V.C.1.b above and V.C.7 below). In 

particular, the commenters claimed that 

additional development of lowtemperature products may be necessary 

to match current efficiency levels. 

Hussmann was concerned with the 

lead time of its customers in planning 

store layouts with ‘‘remote systems,’’ 

which could include remote condensing 

units as well as supermarket systems, 

and indicated that a date of 2018 would 

allow its customers to better determine 

what types of systems and refrigerants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to use. Lennox proposed a ‘‘phased in 

implementation timing by refrigerant 

equipment end-use category,’’ 

suggesting five years from publication of 

the final for remote condensing units 

compared to three years for 

supermarkets and seven years for standalone units. AHRI similarly suggested 

that the change of status date for remote 

condensing units occur after that of 

supermarkets. 

Regarding HFC/HFO blend 

alternatives, Honeywell, indicates that 

supply of R–450A, an alternative listed 

as acceptable, will be available soon and 

that R–448A and R–449A, which are 

currently under SNAP review, are 

undergoing extensive field trials. 

Honeywell further stated that R–448A is 

‘‘close to being qualified with numerous 

manufacturers,’’ indicating that 

manufacturers are developing 

equipment to use this refrigerant. 

DuPont indicated that R–449A works 

well in their tests of a display case 

connected to a remote condensing unit. 

Response: Supermarket Company 

ABC and FMI as well as environmental 

organizations supported or did not 

oppose the proposed status change date 

of January 1, 2016. A number of other 

commenters supported a later date 

ranging from 2017 to as late as 12 years 

after this action is finalized. The 

comments requesting later status change 

dates either did not address retrofits or 

did not provide adequate information 

indicating why a date earlier than that 

for new remote condensing units would 

be infeasible for retrofit equipment. 

Although some use of alternatives is 

already occurring, we agree with the 

commenters that certain technical 

challenges still exist that support a 

change of status date later than we 

proposed for new and retrofit 

equipment. However, we do not agree 

that significant additional time is 

needed before alternatives listed as 

acceptable will be available for new 

equipment. 

There are alternatives that are not 

subject to a status change that are used 

already in new and retrofit remote 

condensing units and others are being 

developed and deployed. As supported 

by the comments from FMI, many 

supermarkets have already transitioned 

away from the refrigerants we are listing 

as unacceptable and are using 

refrigerants that will remain acceptable 

after this final action. Supermarket 

Company ABC stated that alternatives 

were available, pointing towards their 

experience with R–407A in retrofits and 

HFC–134a, R–744 and the R–407 series 

in new equipment. Information in the 

Agency’s possession from a 

manufacturer of such equipment, 

explained above, is indicative that R– 

407A, among other available 

alternatives, can be readily 

implemented now in new remote 

condensing units at mediumtemperature applications both during 

and after meeting DOE energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment and for walk-in 

coolers and freezers. However, the 

information showed efficiency losses for 

this refrigerant in low-temperature 

applications. Although DuPont points to 

positive results using R–449A in a 

display case connected to a remote 

condensing unit, this refrigerant too 

showed lower energy efficiency in lowtemperature than medium-temperature 

conditions. Both comments indicate that 

there is a more significant challenge for 

low-temperature applications. 

Thus, while there has been significant 

progress in transitioning to alternatives 

that will remain acceptable in mediumtemperature applications, there has been 

less progress in doing so for lowtemperature applications. However, the 

information provided by Honeywell and 

DuPont indicates that significant 

additional time will not be needed 

before equipment is available. In 

recognition that new remote-condensing 

unit equipment will need to meet DOE 

and National Sanitation Foundation 

(NSF) standards, and some efficiency 

challenges exist particularly with lowtemperature equipment, we are 

establishing a status change date of 

January 1, 2018, for new remote 

condensing units and July 20, 2016 for 

retrofits. 

Given that the low-temperature 

results with R–407A showed only 3.6% 

to 6.7% efficiency declines along with 

capacity increases, and those from 

DuPont with R–449A showed a slight 

improvement in efficiency, we consider 

a status change date of January 1, 2018, 

to be adequate to adopt these or other 

acceptable alternatives into new 

equipment and perform any testing and 

certification necessary. A January 1, 

2018, change of status date for new 

remote condensing units will allow time 

for manufacturers to redesign any 

products that require additional 

engineering to meet both this rule and 

the DOE standards. In situations where 

these refrigerants do not show energy 

efficiency improvements, other design 

changes as described in the DOE 

rulemakings and in the literature can be 

utilized to achieve required efficiencies. 

In addition, as indicated above, current 

research and testing on some HFC/HFO 

blends show similar or better energy 

efficiency for these products. 

While we agree than a short 

additional amount of time is needed to 

address these technical challenges and 

the testing and certification 

requirements for new equipment, we 

disagree with commenters who suggest 

that a lengthy period is needed prior to 

the change of status. NAFEM estimated 

10 to 12 years to adopt hydrocarbon 

refrigerants; however, as hydrocarbons 

are not listed as acceptable for remote 

condensing units, and no schedule was 

provided for nonflammable refrigerants, 

EPA views this comment as pertaining 

to stand-alone equipment. (See section 

V.C.4 below). All of the refrigerant 

blends that remain acceptable are 

nonflammable and some were designed 

to mimic HFC–134a and R–404A. EPA 

believes that these can be adopted into 

manufacturers’ products with minor 

changes while still meeting the DOE 

requirements. The commenters failed to 

identify specific technical challenges 

that would support a more lengthy 

delay in the change of status date. 

4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food 

refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)? 

The change of status determination 

for retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

equipment) is summarized in the 

following table: 

TABLE 6—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR STAND-ALONE EQUIPMENT

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units 72 with a compressor capacity 

below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded 

evaporator) (new).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/

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

407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42911 

72 ‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment 

that maintains food or beverages at temperatures 

above 32 °F (0 °C). 

73 ‘‘Low-temperature’’ refers to equipment that 

maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or 

below 32 °F (0 °C). 

74See ‘‘New regulations inspire hydrocarbon 

displays at U.S. NAFEM Show,’’ 

www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/view/6143. 

75Shecco, 2015. ‘‘New Regulations Inspire 

Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM Show, 

February 24, 2015. This document is accessible at 

http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/

viewprintable/6143.’’ 

76Shapiro, Doron. ‘‘System Drop-In Tests of R– 

134a, R–1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R–1234ze(E), and 

N13a in a Commercial Bottle Cooler/Freezer’’, 

January 25, 2013. This document is accessible at 

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/

RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20LowGWP%20AREP-Rpt-008.pdf. 

TABLE 6—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR STAND-ALONE EQUIPMENT—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor capacity equal 

to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and stand-alone 

medium-temperature units containing a flooded 

evaporator) (new).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/

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

407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS– 

44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. 

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone low-temperature units 73) (new).HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/

1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R– 

407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– 

421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, RS–44 (2003 formulation).

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. 

Retail food refrigeration (stand-alone units only) 

(retrofit).

R–404A and R–507A .............................................. Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016. 

(a) New Stand-Alone Equipment 

For new stand-alone equipment, EPA 

proposed to list HFC–134a and 31 other 

refrigerants for new stand-alone retail 

food refrigeration equipment 

unacceptable, as of January 1, 2016. In 

today’s final rule, EPA is subdividing 

the new retail food refrigeration (standalone equipment) end-use category. For 

new stand-alone medium-temperature 

units with a compressor capacity below 

2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a 

flooded evaporator, EPA is changing the 

listing for HFC–134a and 30 other 

refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. 

These 30 other refrigerants are FOR12A, 

FOR12B, R–426A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), SP34E, THR–03 and 24 

additional refrigerants, listed below, for 

which EPA is changing the status in all 

types of stand-alone equipment. For 

new stand-alone medium-temperature 

units with a compressor capacity equal 

to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and all 

stand-alone medium-temperature units 

containing a flooded evaporator, EPA is 

changing the listing of HFC–134a and 

the same 30 other refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable as of January 

1, 2020. For new stand-alone lowtemperature units, EPA is changing the 

status from acceptable to unacceptable 

of 24 refrigerants as of January 1, 2020. 

The 24 refrigerants are: HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R– 

417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R– 

507A, and RS–44 (2003 formulation). 

While EPA proposed to change the 

status from acceptable to unacceptable 

for FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, R– 

426A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, 

and THR–03 in all new stand-alone 

equipment, EPA is not changing the 

status for these refrigerants in this final 

rule in stand-alone low-temperature 

equipment, or for IKON B for any standalone equipment, for the reasons 

provided below. EPA clarifies below 

how the compressor capacity is to be 

determined as well as how to 

distinguish medium-temperature and 

low-temperature stand-alone 

equipment. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

EPA has listed R–290, R–600a and R– 

441A acceptable subject to use 

conditions in new stand-alone 

equipment. R–290 is already in use 

globally, including in the United States, 

and R–600a is in use outside of the 

United States as well as in test market 

trials in the United States. For instance, 

at a recent exposition, stand-alone 

equipment using R–290 was displayed 

by multiple companies and component 

suppliers exhibited compressors, filter 

driers, controls and expansion valves 

that are designed to use R–290 or R– 

600a.74

R–450A, R–513A, R–744, IKON A, 

IKON B and THR–02 are listed as 

acceptable substitutes in new standalone equipment without use 

conditions.75 In addition, HFC–134a, 

FOR12A, FOR12B, R–426A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), SP34E and THR–03 

remain acceptable without use 

conditions and are not subject to a 

change of status date in new stand-alone 

low-temperature equipment. Also, 

concurrently with this rule, EPA is 

listing R–448A and R–449A acceptable 

without use conditions for new standalone low-temperature equipment. EPA 

is aware of equipment deployment 

using R–744 and HFC–134a. We are not 

aware of such deployment with respect 

to any other of these substitutes, 

although we are aware that several are 

undergoing research and testing. The 

producer of R–450A, Honeywell, stated 

that the supply of R–450A is ‘‘soon to 

be available.’’ Although we did not see 

evidence that products were produced 

with the HFC/HFO blends that are listed 

as acceptable, publicly-available 

literature indicates that R–448A, R– 

449A, R–450A, R–513A and others are 

under investigation. For example, R– 

513A (trade name XP10) was tested in 

commercial bottle cooler/freezer under 

test 008 of AHRI’s Low-GWP Alternative 

Refrigerants Evaluation Program 

research.76 The Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Magazine quoted 

Emerson, a major supplier of 

compressors for this industry, as saying 

it is ‘‘prepared to support customers and 

devote more resources to qualifying 

lower-GWP A1 refrigerant alternatives 

such as R448A, R449A, R–450A and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

77 Gaved, 2015. ‘‘Emerson Climate Technologies 

offers to help supply chain move to lower-GWP 

refrigerants,’’ www.racplus.com/news/-emersonclimate-technologies-offers-to-help-supply-chainmove-to-lower-gwp-refrigerants/8677708.article. 

78The risks due to the flammability of these 

refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the 

SNAP rules finding them acceptable subject to use 

conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832 and 

April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0748. 

R513A.’’ 77 EPA addressed the supply of 

these HFC/HFO blends, and specifically 

the production of HFO–1234yf and 

HFO–1234ze(E), which are components 

of these blends, above in section 

V.C.2.a.1. 

In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA 

provided information on the risk to 

human health and the environment 

presented by the alternatives that are 

being found unacceptable compared 

with other alternatives, including 

several refrigerants listed as acceptable 

(October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863) or 

acceptable, subject to use conditions 

(April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453) after the 

NPRM was issued. A technical support 

document that provides the additional 

Federal Register citations concerning 

data on the environmental and health 

properties (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, 

toxicity, flammability) for the acceptable 

alternatives as well as those we are 

finding unacceptable may be found in 

the docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 

2015d). 

In summary, for stand-alone mediumtemperature refrigeration equipment, 

the substitutes listed above that remain 

acceptable have zero ODP and GWPs 

ranging from 1 to about 630. In contrast, 

the alternatives that we are listing as 

unacceptable for stand-alone mediumtemperature equipment also have zero 

ODP and they have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Three of the 

substitutes that remain acceptable, R– 

290, R–600a, and R–441A, are or are 

composed primarily of VOC. EPA’s 

analysis indicates that their use as 

refrigerants in this end-use are not 

expected to contribute significantly to 

ground level ozone formation (ICF, 

2014e). These three substitutes are also 

flammable; however, the use conditions 

specified ensure that they do not pose 

greater overall risk than any of the 

substitutes currently listed as acceptable 

in new stand-alone mediumtemperature equipment.78 None of the 

refrigerants currently listed as 

acceptable present significant human 

health toxicity concerns or other 

ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the 

refrigerants we are finding unacceptable 

are similar in ODP (zero ODP), 

flammability (low risks of flammability), 

toxicity (low toxicity), and VOC (nonVOC or not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation). Because the risks other than 

GWP are not significantly different for 

the other available alternatives than for 

those we are listing as unacceptable and 

because the GWP for the refrigerants we 

are listing as unacceptable is 

significantly higher and thus poses 

significantly greater risk, we are listing 

the following refrigerants as 

unacceptable for new stand-alone 

medium-temperature refrigeration 

equipment: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 

134a, HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/

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

R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 

(2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, and THR–03. 

For stand-alone low-temperature 

refrigeration equipment, the substitutes 

that remain acceptable have zero-ODP 

and GWPs ranging from 1 to about 

1,500. The alternatives we are listing as 

unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 1,800 to 3,985. For the 

other risk criteria we review, the 

analysis provided above for stand-alone 

medium-temperature refrigeration 

equipment applies also to for the 

alternatives that remain acceptable and 

those we are listing as unacceptable. 

Because the risks other than GWP are 

not significantly different for the other 

available alternatives than for those we 

proposed to list as unacceptable and 

because the GWP for the refrigerants we 

proposed to list as unacceptable is 

significantly higher and thus poses 

significantly greater risk, we are listing 

the following refrigerants as 

unacceptable for new stand-alone lowtemperature refrigeration equipment: 

HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/

600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R– 

407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– 

422D, R–424A, R–428A, R–434A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, and RS–44 

(2003 formulation). 

(2) When will the status change? 

We are establishing a status change 

date of January 1, 2019, for new standalone medium-temperature equipment 

with a compressor capacity below 2,200 

Btu/hr and not containing a flooded 

evaporator, and a status change date of 

January 1, 2020, for all other types of 

new stand-alone equipment. For this 

equipment, there are several alternatives 

that can meet the technological needs of 

the market. EIA states that ‘‘R–744, R– 

290, R–441A, and isobutene (‘R–600a’) 

can satisfy the vast majority of the 

current market for refrigerants in standalone equipment.’’ We are aware of 

products using R–290, R–600a and R– 

744 that are already on the market. 

According to Shecco, based on its 

October 2014 survey, the manufacturers 

of stand-alone equipment they surveyed 

‘‘are already today able to produce 

sufficient amount of such [R–290, R– 

600a and R–744] equipment to cover the 

needs of the entire market. All of the 

interviewed manufacturers confirmed 

that they plan to covert [sic] their whole 

manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons 

and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.’’ While 

the alternatives that remain acceptable 

will be able to meet the technical 

constraints for this equipment, time will 

be needed for the transition to occur. On 

the aspect of timing, Shecco, 

Supermarket Company ABC, Hatco, and 

H&K International suggested a 2018 

change of status date, while DuPont and 

Honeywell suggested 2017. NRDC and 

IGSD believed EPA should maintain the 

proposed January 1, 2016, change of 

status date. In contrast, numerous other 

manufacturers of stand-alone equipment 

indicated concerns with hydrocarbons 

and R–744, and some referenced HFC/ 

HFO blends as a potential solution. 

They recommended change of status 

dates ranging from 2020 to 20 years after 

the rule becomes final. While we agree 

that manufacturers will be able to 

produce equipment using lower-GWP 

refrigerants addressing a large portion of 

the market in the period of 2016–2018, 

we also agree that there are some 

technical challenges that support a 

change of status date of 2019 or 2020 for 

this end-use category. 

Manufacturers indicated several 

necessary steps that will need to occur, 

including development and testing of 

components, such as compressors and 

condensing units, for the full range of 

stand-alone products. In addition, 

engineering, development, and testing 

to meet standards, such as those from 

UL, DOE and NSF, of the products 

would start as components became 

available. Modifications to the factory 

could be required, ranging from a 

simpler change of the refrigerant storage 

area to reconfiguration of the factory to 

address concerns such as ventilation or 

other safety measures. Information 

submitted by the commenters supported 

that these actions could take a few 

months or up to a couple of years. 

However, it is likely that these actions 

could occur simultaneously with other 

steps such as equipment design and 

testing. 

Manufacturers identified three 

distinct refrigerant types. For 

hydrocarbons, including R–290, we do 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42913 

not see any question regarding chemical 

supply. NAMA and True Manufacturing 

indicated that components have already 

been designed globally, including in the 

United States, using both R–290 and R– 

600a. Danfoss, Manitowoc and Unified 

Brands indicated that 1–2 years are 

needed to develop air-cooled 

condensing units for R–290. 

Components using other hydrocarbon 

refrigerants, such as R–441A have not 

been developed, but these refrigerants 

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

in ample supply. 

EPA believes that much of the 

component and equipment development 

can occur at the same time; in other 

words, as certain components become 

available, appropriate units could be 

redesigned using those components, 

prototypes could be built and tested, 

and final designs could be produced, 

while additional components are 

released. Indeed, it appears that many 

manufacturers have already identified a 

portion of their products that they could 

redesign using R–290, as discussed 

below. Once product models are 

designed, testing and certification could 

take place. 

In summary, to use hydrocarbon 

refrigerants, such as R–290, the 

comments support that approximately 

three and a half years is needed for 

equipment to become fully available. 

This includes one to two years to 

develop additional components beyond 

those that are currently available and to 

test the current and newly developed 

components in models. Equipment 

development and testing would occur in 

series, with the final units being 

developed and ready for testing 

approximately one year after the 

components for that unit were available. 

Testing and certification would likewise 

occur as products were developed and 

would span two to three years, much of 

which while other actions are occurring. 

We estimate the final units might take 

an additional six months to a year to test 

and certify once developed. As 

discussed above, any required 

modifications to the factory line and 

facilities would occur concurrently if a 

manufacturer chose to use R–290 or 

another acceptable hydrocarbon 

refrigerant. Hence, EPA believes that 

new stand-alone equipment for 

medium-temperature applications with 

a compressor capacity below 2,200 Btu/ 

hr and not containing a flooded 

evaporator could be available and in 

compliance with a status change date of 

January 1, 2019. 

The steps in developing products for 

R–744 would be similar and on a similar 

time frame as those for hydrocarbons. 

However, although R–744 is in wide 

supply, as supported by commenters 

such as Hillphoenix, Coca-Cola, ParkerHannifin, and HC Duke & Son/ElectroFreeze, there has been limited 

development of components and 

development of necessary components 

in a variety of sizes could take two to 

three years. 

Designing stand-alone equipment 

with R–744 presents challenges such as 

the need for a complete system redesign 

due to higher pressures and the different 

thermodynamic and transport 

properties. Additionally, as supported 

by commenters such as HC Duke & Son/ 

Electro-Freeze, while CO2 system 

efficiency is good at lower ambient 

temperatures, CO2 system efficiency 

suffers at higher temperatures. Thus, it 

may take additional time to develop 

components and equipment for both 

medium and low-temperature 

applications. 

Although it may not be feasible to 

develop R–744 equipment for the full 

spectrum of stand-alone equipment by a 

status change date of January 1, 2019, 

other alternatives, such as the 

hydrocarbons and HFC/HFO blends 

would be available for those uses by the 

January 1, 2019, status change date. 

The third group of alternatives is the 

HFC/HFO blends. Refrigerant producers 

DuPont and Honeywell provided 

detailed comments on the development 

of specific HFC/HFO blends and EPA 

listed one of these, R–450A, as 

acceptable in October 2014. 

Concurrently with this rule, EPA is also 

listing R–513A as acceptable in all 

stand-alone equipment and two 

additional HFC/HFO blends, R–448A 

and R–449A, acceptable in stand-alone 

low-temperature equipment. 

Some samples of these refrigerants are 

available today and are being tested, as 

supported by comments from AHRI. 

However, supplies of some of these 

blends are limited at this time because 

of limits on some of the HFO 

components, HFO–1234yf and HFO– 

1234ze(E). However, as discussed above 

in section V.C.2.a.1, production 

facilities for these refrigerants have 

commenced operation and thus, as 

supported by Honeywell and DuPont, 

we expect adequate supplies to be 

available by January 2017 if not before. 

Unified Brands and Structural Concepts 

indicated that components for HFC/

HFO equipment are being tested and 

developed today and Unified Brands 

further projected that it would be three 

years for a full line of production-ready 

components. 

HFC/HFO blends found acceptable to 

date or submitted to the SNAP program 

are nonflammable, acceptable without 

use conditions, and designed to mimic 

the performance of either HFC–134a or 

R–404A, refrigerants in predominant 

use currently. Thus, as compared with 

hydrocarbons and R–744, there should 

be fewer technical challenges in 

developing equipment using these 

alternatives. Several commenters, 

including Master-Bilt, Structural 

Concepts, and Hoshizaki America, 

supported that transition to these 

alternatives would be simpler and 

quicker once components have been 

developed and there are adequate 

supplies. 

In summary, should manufacturers 

choose to pursue HFC/HFO blends, EPA 

expects such equipment would be 

widely available in about four years and 

that R–450A could be available earlier 

as it was the first such blend found 

acceptable under SNAP. This includes 

one to two years for supplies to become 

widely available, approximately one 

year for development and testing of 

components, and approximately one 

year for equipment development. The 

short time for development of 

components and equipment is due to 

the fact that the properties of the blends 

are similar to the refrigerants most 

manufacturers are currently using. 

Similarly, we expect that there would be 

limited factory modifications, if any, 

and that these could occur concurrently 

with the design work. As with other 

refrigerants, EPA would expect 

equipment testing and certification to be 

rolled out as equipment models are 

redesigned, with the last units being 

available approximately six to twelve 

months after designs are developed. 

We are finalizing a status change date 

of January 1, 2020, for stand-alone lowtemperature retail food refrigeration 

units; stand-alone medium-temperature 

retail food refrigeration units with a 

compressor capacity equal to or 

exceeding 2,200 Btu/hr; and stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration units employing 

a flooded evaporator. 

For these three types of stand-alone 

equipment, we find that an additional 

year beyond January 1, 2019, is needed 

for the change of status. For equipment 

using a flooded evaporator, Emerson 

indicated the lower-GWP refrigerants 

are all ‘‘high glide’’ often in the range of 

7 °F to 10 °F (3.9 °C to 5.6 °C), and that 

such a characteristic presents unique 

redesign and performance challenges. 

Because of this unique design challenge 

that will require additional time to 

address, we are establishing a January 1, 

2020, change of status date for new 

stand-alone equipment that utilizes a 

flooded evaporator. 

The second segment of the standalone equipment end-use category that 

we found faced particular technical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

challenges was equipment designed to 

hold products at low temperatures. The 

choice of refrigerant is in part 

determined by the desired temperature 

that food or beverage will be stored. As 

with ‘‘large’’ equipment, discussed 

below, commenters, including 

Hussmann and Hillphoenix, indicated 

that the charge size limits that apply to 

the hydrocarbon refrigerants could limit 

their use in low-temperature equipment, 

although for some equipment, it may be 

possible to redesign equipment to use 

multiple circuits. In addition, these 

commenters further note that HFC–134a 

was not a workable refrigerant for lowtemperature applications, and thus 

some of the HFC/HFO alternatives, 

specifically R–450A and R–513A, which 

were designed to perform similarly to 

HFC–134a, would likewise not be 

workable in these applications. 

However, other HFC/HFO alternatives, 

such as R–448A and R–449A, designed 

to perform similarly to R–404A could be 

available for low-temperature uses. 

We believe that these technical 

challenges for stand-alone lowtemperature equipment will mean the 

date upon which technically feasible 

solutions are available will be later than 

small, medium-temperature equipment. 

For this reason, we are finalizing a 

change of status date of January 1, 2020, 

for stand-alone low-temperature 

equipment. 

EPA points to the 2014 ASHRAE 

Handbook on Refrigeration, Chapter 15, 

which reads ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigeration equipment maintains an 

evaporator temperature between 0 and 

40 °F [¥18 and 4.4 °C] and product 

temperatures above freezing; lowtemperature refrigeration equipment 

maintains an evaporator temperature 

between ¥40 and 0 °F [¥40 and ¥18 

°C] and product temperatures below 

freezing.’’ We believe the product 

temperature is a more widely 

understood criteria, especially amongst 

equipment owners and users and for 

purposes of compliance, and therefore 

clarify here that for purposes of this rule 

‘‘stand-alone medium-temperature 

equipment’’ is defined as that which is 

designed to maintain product 

temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and 

‘‘stand-alone low-temperature 

equipment’’ is defined as that which is 

designed to maintain product 

temperatures at or below 32 °F (0 °C). 

For large stand-alone equipment with 

additional cooling capacity 

requirements, there are challenges with 

using a number of the lower-GWP 

refrigerants because the refrigerants are 

subject to use conditions, including a 

restriction limiting the charge size to 

150 grams per circuit. The charge size 

use condition applies to the alternative 

refrigerants that are the farthest along in 

design and testing for this end-use 

category, specifically, R–290 and R– 

600a. Because larger equipment often 

needs refrigerant charges that are larger 

than those provided in the use 

conditions, we sought comment on 

possible technical challenges in 

transitioning to another alternative and 

asked how charge size limits for these 

flammable refrigerants might affect our 

determination of whether and when 

alternatives that pose lower risk are 

available for larger equipment. In the 

NPRM, we sought comment on the 

possibility of establishing a use 

restriction that would allow continued 

use of some refrigerants for which we 

would otherwise change the status in 

‘‘large’’ stand-alone equipment. We 

sought comment on how we could 

define ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘small’’ stand-alone 

units in particular considering charge 

size. 

Several commenters addressed these 

issues during the comment period. 

Lennox said that over 98% of its ‘‘basic, 

self-contained refrigeration models 

exceed 500 grams of refrigerant charge,’’ 

precluding the use of flammable 

refrigerants in just one circuit. 

Manitowoc and Nor-Lake indicated that 

if they were to use R–290, multiple 

refrigeration circuits would be required 

considering the 150 gram use condition 

that applies to that refrigerant. Some 

manufacturers discussed the technical 

difficulties with using multiple circuits. 

Hillphoenix noted that the use of 

multiple compressors, each tied to an 

individual condensing unit, would 

require ‘‘more complex control 

synchronization that customers must be 

willing to master’’ and raised a concern 

about whether customers would do so. 

For some equipment, space constraints 

would limit the practicality of using 

multiple, separate refrigeration circuits. 

Minus Forty indicated that ‘‘A 

significant number of our models cannot 

be or would be very impractical to 

transition to R–290 due to their size, 

shape, and custom uniqueness.’’ NorLake stated that multiple circuit 

equipment would use more energy and 

believed that the ‘‘energy efficiency of a 

dual system may also create issues with 

meeting DOE energy requirements.’’ 

EPA agrees that there are additional 

technical challenges faced in converting 

this equipment that use large charge 

sizes. In some instances, the challenge 

may be in developing multi-circuit 

systems that use refrigerants subject to 

the charge-size use limits. In other 

cases, where multiple circuits are not an 

option, these manufacturers will need 

additional time to evaluate refrigerants 

R–744 or the newly listed HFC/HFO 

blends R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and 

R–513A. Therefore, we have established 

a later status change date of January 1, 

2020, for ‘‘large’’ stand-alone 

equipment. 

A few commenters addressed how 

EPA could distinguish ‘‘small’’ from 

‘‘large’’ stand-alone equipment. NorLake suggested a dividing line and 

recommended that it could be set based 

on compressor capacity, pointing to 

2,400 Btu/hr and 2,200 Btu/hr for 

medium and low-temperature freezer 

systems, respectively. Hillphoenix also 

recommended looking at refrigerant 

capacity and performed an analysis that, 

under specific design prescriptions, 

indicated the maximum capacity 

achievable using 150 grams of R–290 

would be 4,800 Btu/hr and 1,600 Btu/ 

hr for medium-and low-temperature 

applications, respectively. Supermarket 

Company ABC suggested making a 

distinction based on interior volume 

and refrigeration requirements, but did 

not offer specifics. Southern Case Art 

indicated difficulty with using R–290 in 

its products that are open-display units 

reaching capacities up to 25,000 Btu/hr. 

Unified Brands indicated R–290 

compressors are available to provide 

cooling capacity up to 5,000 Btu/hr for 

medium-temperature and 2,000 Btu/hr 

in low-temperature applications. 

Traulsen requested a narrowed use 

exemption for ‘‘large stand-alone units 

requiring 2 or more systems to operate 

within the 150 gram limit.’’ 

We believe that the compressor 

capacity limits are a reasonable, easilyunderstood and easily-enforceable 

method to distinguish between products 

that may be unable to rely on flammable 

refrigerants or that will face greater 

challenges in doing so, and those that 

are more easily able to use flammable 

refrigerants consistent with the 150- 

gram charge size limits established in 

the use conditions. We considered 

separate capacity limits for medium and 

low-temperature systems as suggested 

by Nor-Lake and analyzed by 

Hillphoenix, but determined that 

establishing just one value would 

provide more clarity and ease of 

implementation. We chose the lower of 

Nor-Lake’s capacity of 2,200 Btu/hr as a 

dividing line and explain how this 

applies further below. In setting one 

value, however, we considered the 

similarity of the capacities suggested by 

Nor-Lake, and the fact that these came 

within the range of sizes analyzed by 

Hillphoenix. 

Although the 2,200 Btu/hr compressor 

capacity delineation was based on the 

particular comment from Nor-Lake, 

neither that commenter nor others 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42915 

79HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

indicated how that capacity would be 

determined. EPA believes consensus 

standards from AHRI, an association 

representing manufacturers of such 

equipment, may be used for this 

purpose. In today’s final rule, we are 

indicating that the capacity for a standalone unit is to be calculated based on 

the compressor ratings as determined 

under AHRI 540–2004, Performance 

Rating of Positive Displacement 

Refrigerant Compressors and 

Compressor Units. Although ‘‘capacity’’ 

is not a rating specifically to be listed 

under that standard, we note that 

‘‘Compressor or Compressor Unit 

Efficiency’’ and the ‘‘Power Input,’’ 

which are defined in that standard 

under clauses 3.1 and 3.4, respectively, 

are required data for the compressor to 

be listed, per clause 6.2. The compressor 

capacity is the product of those two 

items, with adjustment to ensure the 

result is in the correct units (i.e., Btu/ 

hr). Although a range of capacities may 

be calculated, EPA is clarifying that to 

determine whether the compressor 

capacity is equal to or above 2,200 Btu/ 

hr, we expect the manufacturer to use 

Table 1 of the standard and choose the 

‘‘Standard Rating Condition’’ (defined 

in clause 3.6.1) most appropriate for the 

design and intended use of the product. 

EPA notes that five standard rating 

conditions are listed in the standard, for 

instance at Suction Dew Point 

Temperatures—which is related to the 

designed food or beverage temperature 

within the equipment—of 45 °F (7.2 °C), 

20 °F (¥6.7 °C), ¥10 °F (¥23 °C), ¥25 

°F (¥32 °C), and ¥40 °F (¥40 °C). By 

referring to this table EPA believes the 

dividing line between ‘‘small’’ and 

‘‘large’’ condensing units also considers 

the product application (e.g., ‘‘low’’ or 

‘‘medium’’ temperature), as suggested 

by Nor-Lake and analyzed by 

Hillphoenix, and as discussed above. 

(b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment 

For retrofit stand-alone equipment, 

EPA proposed to change the listing for 

R–404A and R–507A from acceptable to 

unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In 

today’s final rule, we are establishing 

the change of status date of July 20, 

2016. 

This action does not apply to 

servicing existing equipment designed 

for those two refrigerants or servicing 

equipment that was retrofitted to use 

those refrigerants before the January 1, 

2016, status change date. For instance, 

equipment designed for use with or 

retrofitted to R–404A prior to July 20, 

2016, would be allowed to continue to 

operate using and could be serviced 

with R–404A. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

While we do not believe retrofits are 

common in stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment, a number of 

refrigerants are listed as acceptable for 

this purpose: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 

134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/ 

290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R– 

407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– 

417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

424A, R–426A, R–427A, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–450A, R– 

513A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and 

THR-03.79 R–448A and R–449A are also 

listed acceptable for retrofitting standalone low-temperature units. We also 

note that many of the refrigerants 

remaining acceptable are blends with 

small amounts of hydrocarbons. The 

hydrocarbon content allows the 

possibility of retrofitting equipment 

from an ODS (which would have used 

alkylbenzene or a mineral oil) without 

changing the lubricant, whereas usually 

a polyolester is required when 

retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. 

Thus we believe these refrigerants are 

designed for and would prove 

successful in retrofits of stand-alone 

equipment, should such a retrofit be 

desired by the owner. 

In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA 

provided information on the risk to 

human health and the environment 

presented by the alternatives that are 

being found unacceptable compared 

with other available alternatives. A 

technical support document that 

provides the additional Federal Register 

citations concerning data on the SNAP 

criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 

flammability) for these alternatives may 

be found in the docket to this 

rulemaking (EPA, 2015d). In summary, 

the other available alternatives have 

zero ODP as do those that we are finding 

unacceptable. However, the refrigerants 

remaining acceptable have GWPs 

ranging from below 100 to 3,607, lower 

than the GWPs of the two blends we are 

finding unacceptable, which have GWPs 

of 3,922 and 3,985. All of the 

refrigerants remaining acceptable have 

toxicity lower than or comparable to the 

refrigerants whose listing status is 

changing from acceptable to 

unacceptable. The other available 

refrigerants, as well as those we are 

finding unacceptable, are not 

flammable. None of the alternatives is 

considered a VOC; however, some of the 

other available refrigerant blends 

include small amounts (up to 3.4% by 

mass) of VOC such as R–600 (butane) 

and R–600a (isobutane). However, these 

amounts are small, and EPA’s analysis 

of hydrocarbon refrigerants shows that 

even when used neat, they are not 

expected to contribute significantly to 

ground level ozone formation (ICF, 

2014e). Because the risks other than 

GWP are not significantly different for 

the other available alternatives than 

those we are listing as unacceptable and 

because the GWP for the refrigerants we 

are listing as unacceptable is 

significantly higher and thus poses 

significantly greater risk, we are listing 

the following refrigerants as 

unacceptable for retrofit stand-alone 

refrigeration equipment: R–404A and R– 

507A. 

(2) When will the status change? 

Commenters did not indicate any 

technical challenges in retrofitting 

stand-alone equipment with the 

refrigerants that remain acceptable. In 

fact, EIA felt ‘‘The poor energy 

efficiency performance of R–404A is 

another compelling reason to delist this 

refrigerant and replace it with R–134a 

for retrofits, which by comparison, has 

shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.’’ 

EPA does not believe retrofits are nearly 

as common for stand-alone equipment 

as for other retail food refrigeration uses 

considered in this final rule, 

particularly supermarket systems. 

However, similar to the other types of 

retail food refrigeration addressed today, 

EPA is providing one year to ensure that 

any retrofits that are already underway 

will have sufficient time to be 

completed. Therefore, we are 

establishing a change of status date of 

July 20, 2016. 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments 

on retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

equipment)? 

Comment: One commenter, 

Honeywell, addressed the status change 

date for retrofits and supported the 

proposed date of January 2016. 

Commenters suggested a wide-range 

of dates for the status change for new 

equipment. NRDC and IGSD urged EPA 

to maintain the proposed status change 

date of January 1, 2016 for new standalone units. These commenters pointed 

out that coolers using transcritical R– 

744 have already been developed. 

Unified Brands stated ‘‘it will be 

impossible to convert all our equipment 

from R134a and R404A to R290 by 

2016.’’ 

A number of commenters supported a 

change of status a year or two later than 

that proposed. Two refrigerant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

producers, Honeywell and DuPont 

suggested a change of status date of 

2017 for new equipment to allow fuller 

development of HFC/HFO blends that 

require minimal design changes and 

offer similar or better performance than 

current refrigerants. Shecco indicated 

that a date of January 1, 2018, was 

needed for ‘‘smaller’’ manufacturers to 

meet the requirements. Supermarket 

Company ABC also supported a 2018 

change of status date for new standalone equipment. H&K International 

indicated R–290 is very energy efficient 

and that 2018 would provide enough 

time to transition. Another 

manufacturer, Hatco, also believed a 

‘‘January 1, 2018 implementation date 

would provide the needed time to do 

the necessary testing and certification 

for a safe and effective conversion.’’ 

Other commenters supported a much 

later change of status date for new 

equipment. Approximately 30 

manufacturers, two industry 

associations representing equipment 

manufacturers (AHRI and NAFEM), an 

association representing supermarkets 

(FMI), and a beverage supplier (CocaCola) suggested dates ranging from 2020 

to 2025. True Manufacturing, indicated 

they have been shipping products using 

hydrocarbons and R–744 for several 

years. Hillphoenix provided a 

refrigerant change schedule that 

discussed the development of R–744, 

hydrocarbons and HFO blends; this 

schedule suggested various dates for 

different tasks for these three refrigerant 

types. Based on the timeframes 

associated with these tasks, they 

suggested a change of status date of 

January 1, 2022, for stand-alone 

equipment. Lennox believed the NPRM 

‘‘generally contemplates a wholesale 

switch to hydrocarbon refrigerants’’ in 

stand-alone equipment. NAFEM 

indicated it would ‘‘take ten to twelve 

years for manufacturers to convert their 

product lines to use isobutene or 

propane.’’ 

Response: As provided above in our 

discussion of the status change dates we 

are finalizing, we agree with the 

commenters who suggest a few 

additional years are needed for the 

status change. However, we do not agree 

that commenters advocating a lengthy 

delay in the change of status provided 

support for such a delay. As an initial 

matter, to the extent that these 

commenters identified concerns with 

alternatives, their concerns were 

focused on one refrigerant or class of 

refrigerants and the commenters did not 

consider the full range of available or 

potentially available refrigerants. 

Specifically, those comments appeared 

to have focused on alternatives for 

which the most significant amount of 

design changes would be necessary and 

did not appear to consider the range of 

available refrigerants, many of which 

could be used with less significant 

changes to designs. Manufacturers will 

likely select different refrigerants for 

different products. Those manufacturers 

that are not interested in designing 

equipment that uses hydrocarbon 

refrigerants, given some of their stated 

concerns with overcoming challenges 

with safety and VOC issues, could select 

a nonflammable fluorinated refrigerant 

such as an HFC/HFO blend designed to 

mimic many of the characteristics of the 

refrigerants they are using today. EPA 

believes such HFC/HFO blends will 

become available by the status change 

dates established in this rule and note 

that R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and R– 

513A are listed as acceptable in this 

end-use category, with the latter two 

being acceptable in stand-alone 

medium-temperature equipment and all 

four being acceptable in stand-alone 

low-temperature equipment. 

Furthermore, EPA points to the fact that 

new HFC/HFO blends have been listed 

as acceptable and that such blends 

perform similarly to traditional 

refrigerants and have proved to be as 

efficient or even offer an efficiency 

advantage. As discussed above, the 

supply of these refrigerants is increasing 

and the components to use them are in 

development. EPA believes that by 

finalizing a status change date for new 

stand-alone equipment several years 

later than proposed, manufacturers will 

have the ability to choose such HFC/

HFO blends for their equipment, as well 

as the other alternatives, including R– 

290, R–441A, R–600a and R–744, which 

have already been listed as acceptable or 

acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

There is ample supply of R–290 and R– 

744; however, the technical difficulties 

discussed with R–290 (particularly in 

‘‘large’’ units) and R–744 suggest that 

not all manufacturers will be able to 

convert their products and undergo the 

testing and certification necessary 

before that equipment can be sold. 

Because the HFC/HFO blends are 

designed to mimic the performance of 

the refrigerants they replace, the 

adoption of those is expected to take 

less time; however, there is only limited 

supply of those refrigerants now. Given 

the limited current supply, the initiation 

of the product conversion, testing and 

certification would not start until 

approximately 2016–2017, and hence 

manufacturers would not be able to 

provide products using these 

alternatives until approximately 2019– 

2020. 

As pointed out by Honeywell and 

DuPont, some of the HFC/HFO blend 

alternatives, such as R–448A, R–449A, 

R–450A and R–513A, can be used with 

little adjustment to existing designs, 

show energy efficiencies equal to or 

better than current refrigerants. While 

there is not currently sufficient supply 

of these refrigerants, Honeywell and 

DuPont have indicated that production 

facilities for the components are on-line 

(see V.C.2.a.1 above) and that the blends 

will be made available after listed 

acceptable with SNAP. As noted 

previously, Honeywell has stated that 

R–450A supplies will be ‘‘available 

soon’’ and multiple component 

manufacturers are developing 

equipment that uses these alternatives. 

Hillphoenix’s refrigerant change 

schedule indicates that ‘‘Lab/User 

Testing’’ and ‘‘Test & Verification’’ is 

already underway with such blends. 

These blends offer equipment 

manufacturers additional energy 

efficient options to rapidly transition 

out of refrigerants listed as unacceptable 

while also avoiding some of the 

concerns (e.g., flammability, charge size 

limits, operation in hot temperatures) 

manufacturers indicated exist with 

other alternatives such as R–290 and R– 

744. 

Several commenters pointed out that 

at least some part of their product line 

can be converted to R–290 and some 

manufacturers are already offering 

products to the market using these 

options. For instance, Hillphoenix’s 

refrigerant change schedule indicates 

that the step of ‘‘Convert Products’’ for 

‘‘Hydrocarbons (on applicable systems)’’ 

can begin in 2015 and continue after 

that until 2020. They did not provide a 

full explanation of why the process 

would continue until 2020; however, 

EPA sees from commenters that there 

will be time necessary to develop 

products and have them undergo the 

testing and certification necessary to sell 

such products. EPA believes that by our 

status change dates of 2019 and 2020, 

and not before, manufacturers will be 

able to complete the development of 

products using R–290 or other 

hydrocarbons. EPA also believes that 

testing and certification resources are 

available to meet this deadline, and that 

more can be created if there is a demand 

for them. 

As many commenters pointed out, 

compliance with new DOE energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial refrigeration equipment is 

required on March 27, 2017 and for 

stand-alone walk-in coolers and freezers 

is required on June 5, 2017 (see also 

sections V.C.1.b and V.C.7). EPA is 

establishing change of status dates of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42917 

80HCFC–22 and some blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

81The risks due to the flammability of these 

refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the 

SNAP rule finding them acceptable, subject to use 

conditions (April 10, 2015; 80 FR 19453). Refer to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748. 

January 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, for 

stand-alone units. This allows 

additional time after compliance is 

required with the DOE standards for 

manufacturers to potentially redesign 

any products that require additional 

engineering to meet both this rule and 

the DOE standards. With 2019 and 2020 

change of status dates, manufacturers 

have the opportunity to integrate lowGWP refrigerants in their models now as 

they prepare for the DOE requirements 

for some or all of their products. Other 

products already meeting those DOE 

standards but utilizing refrigerants that 

we are listing as unacceptable may be 

redesigned after the DOE deadline to 

ensure compliance with both EPA and 

DOE requirements. Given that some 

HFC/HFO blends, such as R–450A and 

R–513A, were designed to mimic HFC– 

134a in medium-temperature 

refrigeration, and others, such as R– 

448A and R–449A, were designed to 

mimic R–404A in low-temperature 

refrigeration, EPA believes that these 

can be adopted into manufacturers’ 

products with minor changes while still 

meeting the DOE requirements, once 

supplies of those refrigerants are made 

available to the manufacturers. 

5. What is EPA finalizing for vending 

machines? 

The change of status determination 

for vending machines is summarized in 

the following table: 

TABLE 7—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR VENDING MACHINES

End-use Substitutes Decision 

Vending machines (new only) .. FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, 

R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–426A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), SP34E.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019. 

Vending machines (retrofit only) R–404A, R–507A ...................................................................... Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016. 

(a) New Vending Machines 

EPA proposed to change the listing for 

HFC–134a and 20 other refrigerants for 

new vending machines from acceptable 

to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In 

today’s final rule, EPA is changing the 

listing for HFC–134a and 19 other 

refrigerants for new vending machines 

from acceptable to unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2019. While EPA proposed to 

change the status from acceptable to 

unacceptable for IKON B, EPA is not 

changing the status for this refrigerant in 

this final rule for the reasons provided 

below. 

The 19 other refrigerants in addition 

to HFC–134a are: FOR12A, FOR12B, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R–410A, R– 

410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R– 

438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), and SP34E. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of other refrigerants are 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions for new vending machines: 

IKON A, IKON B, R–290, R–441A, R– 

450A, R–513A, R–600a, R–744, and 

THR-02.80

In the NPRM, EPA provided 

information on the risk to human health 

and the environment presented by the 

alternatives that are being found 

unacceptable and those that remain 

acceptable. Subsequent to the issuance 

of the proposal, EPA listed R–290, R– 

441A and R–600a, as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions (April 10, 2015, 80 FR 

19453). In addition, concurrently with 

this rule, EPA is listing R–450A and R– 

513A acceptable in new vending 

machines. A technical support 

document that provides the additional 

Federal Register citations concerning 

data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, 

GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 

these alternatives may be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 

2015d). In summary, the other available 

refrigerants for new vending machines 

have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from 

1 to about 630. In contrast, those we are 

finding unacceptable have GWPs 

ranging from approximately 1,100 to 

3,985. IKON B, which we proposed but 

are not finalizing to be unacceptable, 

has a GWP around 600. R–290, R–600a, 

and R–441A are or are composed 

primarily of VOCs. We have exempted 

R–290, R–600a and R–441A used in 

vending machines from the venting 

prohibition (80 FR 19453). EPA’s 

analysis indicates that their use as 

refrigerants in this end-use are not 

expected to contribute significantly to 

ground level ozone formation (ICF, 

2014e). These three substitutes are also 

flammable; however, the use conditions 

specified ensure that they do not pose 

greater overall risk than any of the 

substitutes currently listed as acceptable 

in new vending machines.81 None of the 

refrigerants currently listed as 

acceptable present significant human 

health toxicity concerns or other 

ecosystem impacts. In comparison, the 

refrigerants we are finding unacceptable 

are similar in ODP (zero ODP), toxicity 

(low toxicity), and VOC (non-VOC or 

not expected to contribute significantly 

to ground level ozone formation). When 

the three hydrocarbon substitutes are 

used in accordance with the use 

conditions, their flammability risks are 

not significantly greater than those of 

the unacceptable alternatives. Because 

the risks other than GWP are not 

significantly different for the other 

available alternatives than those we are 

listing as unacceptable and because the 

GWP for the refrigerants we are listing 

as unacceptable is significantly higher 

and thus poses significantly greater risk, 

we are listing the following refrigerants 

as unacceptable for new vending 

machines: HFC–134a, FOR12A, 

FOR12B, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a 

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

410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–426A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 

formulation), and SP34E. 

(2) When will the status change? 

EPA is establishing a change of status 

date for the specified HFC refrigerants 

in new vending machines of January 1, 

2019. 

For new vending machines, there are 

several alternatives that can meet the 

technological needs of the market. EIA 

states that ‘‘R–744, R–290, R–441A, and 

isobutene (‘R–600a’) can satisfy the vast 

majority of the current market for 

refrigerants in . . . vending machines.’’ 

We are aware of products using R–290 

and R–744 that are already in use. 

According to Shecco, based on its 

October 2014 survey, the manufacturers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

82PepsiCo, 2009. ‘‘PepsiCo Brings First ClimateFriendly Vending Machines to the U.S.,’’ March 30, 

2009, this document is accessible at 

www.pepsico.com/live/pressrelease/pepsico-bringsfirst-climate-friendly-vending-machines-to-theus03302009. 

of vending machines they surveyed ‘‘are 

already today able to produce sufficient 

amount of such equipment [R–290 and 

R–744] to cover the needs of the entire 

market. All of the interviewed 

manufacturers confirmed that they plan 

to covert [sic] their whole 

manufacturing facilities to hydrocarbons 

and/or CO2 by 2018/2019 latest.’’ While 

the alternatives that remain acceptable 

will be able to meet the technical 

constraints for this equipment, time will 

be needed for the transition to occur. On 

the aspect of timing, Shecco supported 

a status change date of January 1, 2018, 

although their survey suggested some 

manufacturers might not convert until 

2019. Shecco indicated that the supply 

of HFC-free vending machines has been 

increasing over the last two years. Other 

commenters suggested that four to five 

years would be required, mentioning in 

particular the supply of components as 

a major obstacle in achieving the 

proposed January 1, 2016, status change 

date. While we agree that manufacturers 

will be able to produce equipment using 

lower-GWP refrigerants addressing a 

large portion of the market in the period 

of 2016–2017, we also agree that there 

are some technical challenges that 

support a change of status date of 2019 

for this end-use. 

Commenters indicated several 

necessary steps that will need to occur, 

including development and testing of 

components, such as compressors, for 

the full range of vending machines. In 

addition, engineering, development, and 

testing to meet standards, such as those 

from DOE, of the products would start 

as components became available. 

Modifications to the factory could be 

required, ranging from a simpler change 

of the refrigerant storage area to 

reconfiguration of the factory to address 

concerns such as ventilation or other 

safety measures. Information submitted 

by the commenters supported that for 

the portion of the vending machines 

that have not already transitioned to a 

lower-GWP refrigerant, these actions 

could take a few months or up to a 

couple of years. However, it is likely 

that these actions could occur 

simultaneous with other steps such as 

equipment design and testing. 

One manufacturer identified two 

refrigerant types: R–744 and 

hydrocarbons. Refrigerant producers 

also pointed towards HFC/HFO blends 

as a third group. For R–744, we do not 

see any question regarding refrigerant 

supply. Information submitted by the 

commenters support that some 

components are already available. CocaCola indicated time was needed for 

testing and certifying new models of 

vending machines; however, additional 

information indicated that various types 

of R–744 vending machines are already 

available or are expected to be available 

by January 1, 2016. Pepsi has testmarketed R–744 vending machines in 

the United States as early as 2009.82 The 

Automated Merchandising Systems 

(AMS) however stated that R–744 was 

unlikely as a viable substitute for its 

equipment, especially for the perishable 

food vending machines it offers. 

Although EPA did not see the technical 

detail to allow us to conclude that R– 

744 would not be a viable choice for 

such equipment, we agree that 

additional time beyond our proposed 

status change date is needed to explore 

that and other acceptable substitutes for 

this equipment. The comments support 

that equipment can be designed, tested 

and certified using R–744 by January 1, 

2019. 

Comments also supported that some 

components and equipment using 

hydrocarbons are available. AMS stated 

that one hurdle for using R–290 is 

finding 120-volt, 60-hertz components 

for the U.S. and Canadian markets. AMS 

also echoed the concern of Coca-Cola 

that more time is needed for testing and 

certifying new models of vending 

machines. EPA agrees time beyond the 

originally proposed January 1, 2016, 

status change date is necessary for 

further development of R–290 

components and for necessary testing 

and certification of R–290 vending 

machines. Information in the comments 

indicate that some R–290 components 

are available from multiple suppliers 

and we believe that these components 

could be employed in vending 

machines. 

In summary, to use hydrocarbons 

refrigerants, comments support that 

approximately three and a half years are 

needed for equipment to become fully 

available. This includes six months to 

test and design products using the 

available R–290 components and an 

additional year to two years for 

development of other components and 

equipment designs. Equipment 

development and testing would occur in 

series, with the final units being 

developed and ready for testing 

approximately six months after the 

components for that unit were available. 

Testing and certification would likewise 

occur as products were developed and 

would span up to three years, much of 

which while other actions are occurring. 

We estimate the final units might take 

an additional six months to test and 

certify once developed. As discussed 

above, any required modifications to the 

factory line and facilities would occur 

concurrently if a manufacturer chose to 

use R–290 or another acceptable 

hydrocarbon refrigerant. Hence, EPA 

believes that new vending machines 

could be available and in compliance 

with a status change date of January 1, 

2019. 

Comments also support that other 

options besides R–744 and 

hydrocarbons may be explored for those 

products that have not yet transitioned. 

Concurrently with this rule, EPA is 

listing two HFC/HFO blends, R–450A 

and R–513A, as acceptable for new 

vending machines. Although 

commenters did not indicate a current 

supply of components for these 

refrigerants, information indicates that 

component suppliers are committing 

additional resources to develop them. 

EPA believes their adoption can happen 

quickly as they are both nonflammable 

blends and are designed to mimic the 

performance of HFC–134a, the only 

refrigerant indicated by a manufacturer 

as used in its vending machines. As 

noted earlier, Honeywell, the producer 

of R–450A, indicated that it will be 

supplying that refrigerant soon. We 

expect that the refrigerant producers 

will be able to fully supply these blends 

in a year or two. EPA expects that 

components designed for the vending 

machine market using one or both of 

these blends could be developed within 

the next year to eighteen months as 

more refrigerant supplies become 

available. As components become 

available, additional design and testing 

in vending machines could begin. 

Because the comments indicated only 

one refrigerant to be replaced, and 

because the HFC/HFO blends are 

designed to mimic that refrigerant, 

equipment development time for 

vending machines is expected to be 

shorter than other end-uses, perhaps 

adding only six months. Limited factory 

modifications, if any, could happen 

concurrently with the design work. As 

with other refrigerants, EPA would 

expect equipment testing and 

certification to be rolled out as 

equipment models are redesigned, with 

the last units being available 

approximately six months after designs 

are developed. 

In summary, we find that HFC/HFO 

blends could be implemented to meet 

the January 1, 2019, status change date 

for new vending machines. 

(b) Retrofit Vending Machines 

For retrofit vending machines, EPA 

proposed to change the listing for R– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42919 

83HCFC–22 and several blends containing HCFCs 

are also listed as available but their use is severely 

restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production. 

404A and R–507A from acceptable to 

unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. In 

today’s final rule, we are finalizing a 

change of status of July 20, 2016 similar 

to the retail food end-uses considered in 

this final action. EPA does not believe 

retrofits are nearly as common in 

vending machines as for some of the 

retail food refrigeration uses, 

particularly supermarket systems. 

However, similar to the retail food 

refrigeration addressed today, EPA is 

providing one year to ensure that any 

retrofits that are already underway, will 

have sufficient time to be completed. 

This action does not apply to 

servicing existing equipment designed 

for those two refrigerants or servicing 

equipment that was retrofitted to use 

those refrigerants before the January 1, 

2016, status change date. For instance, 

vending machines designed for use with 

or retrofitted to use R–404A or R507A 

prior to July 20, 2016, would be allowed 

to continue to operate using and could 

be serviced with that refrigerant. 

(1) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

A number of refrigerants are 

acceptable for retrofitting vending 

machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– 

134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/ 

290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R– 

407C, R–417A, R–417C, R–421A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–426A, R– 

437A, R–438A, R–448A, R–449A, R– 

450A, R–513A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), SP34E, and THR-02.83

We do not believe retrofits are 

common in vending machines. Many of 

the refrigerants remaining acceptable are 

blends with small amounts of 

hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon content 

allows the possibility of retrofitting 

equipment from an ODS (which would 

have used alkylbenzene or a mineral oil) 

without changing the lubricant, whereas 

usually a polyolester is required when 

retrofitting to an HFC or HFC blend. 

Thus we believe these refrigerants 

would prove successful in retrofits of 

vending machines, should such a 

retrofit be desired by the owner. 

In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA 

provided information on the risk to 

human health and the environment 

presented by the alternatives that are 

being found unacceptable and those that 

remain acceptable. A technical support 

document that provides the additional 

Federal Register citations concerning 

data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, 

GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 

these alternatives may be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA, 

2015d). In summary, other alternatives 

have zero ODP and have GWPs ranging 

from below 100 to 3,085, lower than the 

GWPs of the two blends we are finding 

unacceptable, which have GWPs of 

3,922 and 3,985. All of the refrigerants 

remaining acceptable have toxicity 

lower than or comparable to the 

refrigerants whose listing status is 

changing from acceptable to 

unacceptable. None of the refrigerants 

that remain acceptable or those that are 

being listed as unacceptable is 

flammable. None of the alternatives is 

considered a VOC; however, some of the 

refrigerant blends that remain 

acceptable include small amounts (up to 

3.4% by mass) of VOCs such as R–600 

(butane) and R–600a (isobutane). 

However, these amounts are small, and 

EPA’s analysis of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants show even when used neat 

they are not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation (ICF, 2014e). Because the 

risks other than GWP are not 

significantly different for the other 

available alternatives than those we are 

listing as unacceptable and because the 

GWP for the refrigerants we are listing 

as unacceptable is significantly higher 

and thus poses significantly greater risk, 

we are listing the following refrigerants 

as unacceptable for retrofit vending 

machines: R–404A and R–507A. 

(2) When will the status change? 

Commenters did not indicate any 

technical challenges in retrofitting 

vending machines with the refrigerants 

that remain acceptable. In fact, EIA felt 

‘‘The poor energy efficiency 

performance of R–404A is another 

compelling reason to delist this 

refrigerant and replace it with R–134a 

for retrofits, which by comparison, has 

shown a 10 percent efficiency gain.’’ As 

discussed above, however, commenters 

indicated that plans may be underway 

and that adequate time should be given 

to allow for those plans to be 

implemented or changed. Therefore, we 

are establishing a change of status date 

of July 20, 2016. 

(c) How is EPA responding to comments 

on vending machines? 

Comment: Honeywell supported the 

proposed date for retrofit vending 

machines. Regarding new vending 

machines, NRDC and IGSD believed the 

proposed status change date of January 

1, 2016, was feasible and stated that the 

Consumer Goods Forum has pledged to 

transition completely out of HFC 

equipment by the end of 2015. 

Honeywell and DuPont, suggested a 

change of status date of 2017 for new 

vending machines to allow fuller 

development of additional alternatives 

that would require minimal design 

changes and offer similar or better 

performance than current refrigerants. 

Shecco felt that while the large 

manufacturers could meet the proposed 

date, a date of January 1, 2018, would 

allow for smaller manufacturers to meet 

the requirements. The Coca-Cola 

Company claimed the change of status 

date for new vending machines should 

be no earlier than January 1, 2020, to 

allow time for the development of 

additional compressor models of its 

preferred alternative to cover a full 

range of required capacities. AMS, a 

vending machine manufacturer, believes 

that one option that is being pursued on 

the beverage side, R–744, is not a viable 

solution for perishable food vending 

equipment. This manufacturer 

recommends a January 1, 2020, change 

of status date to allow for development 

of additional alternatives. The National 

Automatic Merchandising Association 

(NAMA) indicated that the conversion 

timeline is likely to be four or five years, 

although some of its members estimate 

the timeline to be as much as eight 

years, based on the experience of the 

mid-1990s when companies phased out 

the use of CFC–12. 

Response: We acknowledge the 

comment supporting the proposed date 

of January 1, 2016 for retrofit vending 

machines and note that we are finalizing 

that change of status date as proposed. 

We do not agree with NAMA that the 

switch away from CFC–12 in the mid1990s supports a four, five or even eight 

year period. The phaseout of CFC–12 

consumption was January 1, 1996, less 

than two years after the initial SNAP 

listings were issued. Regardless, each 

transition is unique and the timing for 

transitions can vary end-use by end-use 

and even for the same end-uses 

depending on a number of factors, such 

as whether alternatives that perform 

similarly to the current refrigerant can 

be used or whether significant design 

changes may need to occur. 

Regarding this current action for 

vending machines, the transition away 

from the substitutes we are listing as 

unacceptable is already underway based 

on public commitments made by some 

of the largest purchasers of vending 

machines. Shecco conducted a survey of 

vending machine manufacturers in 

October 2014 and found that all were 

planning to convert to hydrocarbons 

and/or R–744 in the 2018/2019 

timeframe at the latest. Many companies 

have already made significant progress. 

For example, the Coca-Cola Company 

has placed over 1.4 million HFC-free 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

units globally and EIA indicates that 

‘‘Pepsi is approaching 1 million 

hydrocarbon vending machines which 

use 20 percent less energy than Energy 

Star requirements.’’ There has been 

success developing and deploying 

vending machines with R–744, 

including the manufacture of 

components for those machines. EIA 

enumerated four manufacturers offering 

hydrocarbon compressors and 

components for light commercial uses, 

including vending machines. Although 

Coca-Cola requested a 2020 change of 

status date, other information listing 

commercialization plans for low-GWP 

stand-alone equipment and vending 

machines indicated that by January 1, 

2016, all of the vending machines in 

that list were expected to be available 

with low-GWP refrigerants. However, 

other commenters indicated that more 

components need to be developed for 

different types of vending machines to 

support a complete transition. AMS 

stated that more components for R–290 

suitable for the U.S. and Canadian 

power supply (e.g., 60 Hz) were needed. 

We agree that the choice of components 

to-date has been limited but we see that 

it is growing and expect it to continue 

to grow, especially considering that two 

large U.S. purchasers of vending 

machines have committed to move to 

non-HFC technologies. R–744, R–290 

and R–600a components used in other 

products, like stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment, may also be 

adaptable for vending machines. 

Thus, although significant progress 

has been made, in particular with the 

use of R–744 in vending machines that 

dispense canned beverages, it is 

necessary to provide some additional 

time beyond the proposed date of 

January 1, 2016 to allow further 

development of components for 

different types of vending machines and 

also to allow further development of 

components using other alternative 

refrigerants. 

6. General Comments on the Retail Food 

Refrigeration and Vending Machine 

End-Uses 

(a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP 

Comment: Unisom Comfort 

Technologies requested that EPA 

consider banning all refrigerants with 

GWP greater than 10, as there are very 

many existing alternatives. DuPont 

recommended that EPA change the 

status to unacceptable for all 

alternatives which generally have GWPs 

above 1,500, such as the R–407 series 

refrigerants. They suggested this limit 

‘‘for new and retrofit refrigeration and 

vending applications.’’ DuPont 

indicated that by January 1, 2017, there 

will be multiple low-GWP alternatives 

commercially available. Another 

refrigerant producer, Honeywell, 

recommended a GWP limit for new 

supermarket systems and remote 

condensing units of 1,500 and a GWP 

limit of 2,000 for retrofitted equipment, 

based on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment 

Report (AR5). For new stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines, 

Honeywell recommended a GWP limit 

of 600 (using AR5 GWPs) for HFC–134a 

replacements and 1,500 for R–404A 

replacements. CARB suggested adding 

an additional restriction for all 

commercial refrigeration to find 

unacceptable all HFCs with a GWP 

greater than 1,500 starting in 2018 and 

all those with a GWP greater than 150 

in 2023. Unison Comfort Technologies 

implored us to ‘‘seriously consider 

banning all refrigerants with GWP>10.’’ 

Response: EPA’s proposal was limited 

to determinations for the specific 

refrigerants proposed which pose 

significantly greater risk than other 

available refrigerants, and we cannot 

take final action changing the status of 

additional refrigerants without first 

providing notice and an opportunity for 

comment. EPA may consider whether to 

include additional refrigerants in a 

future proposed status change rule in 

which EPA would provide the necessary 

analysis of the SNAP criteria and an 

opportunity for public comment. 

Regarding the suggestion that we 

establish a specific numerical limit for 

GWP, as noted in Section IV.B, the 

structure of the SNAP program, which 

is based on a comparative framework of 

available substitutes at the time a 

decision is being made, does not 

support the use of such limits. We note 

that in making our decision for new and 

retrofit supermarket systems and remote 

condensing units, EPA pointed to the 

multi-year history of the successful use 

of some blends that remain acceptable 

to support the ‘‘availability’’ of 

alternatives that pose less risk than 

those we are listing as unacceptable. 

Many of these blends have GWPs higher 

than the limits recommended by the 

commenters. Thus, at this time, we do 

not believe an analysis of refrigerants 

below those limits recommended by the 

commenters with those above the limit 

and which remain acceptable would 

support a conclusion that the lowerGWP refrigerants are available for use, 

as many have not been demonstrated to 

be technically feasible for products and 

systems in these specific end-use 

categories. As noted previously, there 

are a number of technical challenges 

that must be addressed in selecting a 

refrigerant for use in a specific system 

and we do not have information 

supporting use of these lower-GWP 

refrigerants. However, as we see from 

the current action, the refrigeration 

industry has made great progress in the 

last five to ten years in moving toward 

lower-GWP alternatives and we see that 

momentum continuing. Therefore, it is 

possible that at some future date, we 

could determine to list additional 

alternatives as unacceptable based on a 

determination that there are lower-GWP 

alternatives available that, based on 

consideration of the SNAP review 

criteria, pose lower overall risk. 

(b) Comments and Responses 

Concerning Small Businesses 

Comment: Commercial Food 

Equipment Service Association 

(CFESA), an organization representing 

service companies and technicians, 

suggested a timeline ‘‘ideally extended 

to 10 years for small businesses’’ and 

‘‘no less than 5 years’’ for large 

companies. Shecco believed that many 

of the smaller manufacturers lag behind 

the larger companies in the switch away 

from HFC–134a in stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines. They 

suggested a January 1, 2018, change of 

status date would provide sufficient 

time for these smaller companies, 

‘‘enabling them to remain in the 

marketplace and ensuring healthy 

competition in this area.’’ 

Response: EPA does not agree that a 

different change of status date should 

apply to large companies as compared 

to small companies. The available 

alternatives that pose lower risk than 

those subject to the status change are 

equally available to businesses of all 

sizes. Under SNAP, EPA has not used 

the ‘‘size’’ of the user as a basis for its 

listing decisions and the commenter 

provides no basis related to the scope 

and purpose of the SNAP program to do 

so in this instance. EPA’s decision 

regarding the status change dates for 

new retail food refrigeration equipment 

and new vending machines was based 

on the technical challenges faced by 

businesses of all sizes in adopting new 

refrigerants successfully in these 

products. 

Comment: Some commenters 

indicated that they believe additional 

time is needed for smaller companies, 

especially businesses in the standalone/self-contained retail food 

refrigeration end-use that manufacture 

custom-built equipment and produce 

hundreds of models. The commenters 

also indicated particular challenges and 

disadvantages for small businesses as 

compared to larger businesses. 

Response: We note that transition 

timelines in the NPRM were based on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42921 

84Shecco, 2013a: GUIDE 2013: Natural 

Refrigerants—Market Growth for North America, 

publication.shecco.com/publications/view/6 

85Refrigeration equipment in the applicable 

covered equipment class would still be subject to 

DOE’s standards, regardless of the refrigerant that 

the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that 

its design is subjected to undue hardship by a 

regulatory standard prescribed by DOE (in contrast 

to one that is statutorily prescribed by Congress), 

the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of 

Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s 

authority under section 504 of the DOE 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented 

at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 

authority to grant regulatory relief from a standard 

promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it 

determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated 

that meeting the standard would cause hardship, 

inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens. 

the Agency’s information concerning 

the availability of alternatives for 

businesses of all sizes and we did not 

provide separate change of status dates 

for different size businesses. We address 

these concerns further in the previous 

comment and response. 

(c) Suggestion Regarding Education and 

Training 

Comment: CFESA points to the need 

for ‘‘proper education and safety 

training for a successful and safe 

transition away from current refrigerants 

to the flammable or scarce refrigerants 

EPA deems acceptable.’’ Other 

commenters likewise stated training of 

factory employees and service 

technicians would be required, 

especially if hydrocarbon refrigerants 

were employed. 

Response: Because CFESA and others 

reference flammable refrigerants, EPA 

believes this comment is particular to 

stand-alone equipment and vending 

machines, where certain flammable 

refrigerants are currently acceptable 

subject to use conditions. However, for 

these two end-uses, not all refrigerants 

listed as acceptable are flammable. 

Acceptable alternatives for stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines, such 

as R–448A, R–449A, R–450A and R– 

513A, are nonflammable and operate at 

similar characteristics to R–404A and 

HFC–134a. CFESA does not specify 

which refrigerants it considers scarce. 

Nonflammable R–744 refrigerant, for 

example, is in ample supply. While 

some other refrigerants have not been 

produced in large quantities to date, 

production is increasing as demand 

increases, including R–448A, R–449A, 

R–450A and R–513A. Honeywell 

indicates that R–450A is soon to be 

produced in commercial quantities, and 

EPA expects it, along with other HFC/ 

HFO blends, will be available by the 

change of status dates of 2019 and 2020 

for vending machines and stand-alone 

equipment. With respect to technician 

training, EPA agrees proper education 

and training is valuable, and we note 

that there are already many 

manufacturers and suppliers who have 

been conducting such training. For 

example, Shecco notes that ‘‘The GUIDE 

North America 2013 84 report has 

identified at least 165 [Heating, 

Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and 

Refrigeration] HVAC&R System & 

Component Manufacturers, and 

Engineering Contractors in the United 

States working with natural refrigerants 

already today. In reality we have a 

reason to believe that this number is 

much higher.’’ Coke noted that it has 

developed and trained a servicing 

network as it introduced R–744 

equipment. Included in the docket to 

this rule is Hydrocarbon Refrigerants— 

A Study Guide for Service Technicians, 

published by the Refrigeration Service 

Engineers Society (RSES), that could be 

used for those wishing to service new 

stand-alone units and new vending 

machines using R–290, R–441A or R– 

600a. 

The HFC/HFO blend alternatives, 

identified above, are nonflammable and 

operate at similar characteristics to 

those subject to the status change and 

therefore technicians should require 

only minimal extra training to use them. 

Because different change of status dates 

apply for the different refrigeration enduses technicians will have an 

opportunity to stagger training relevant 

for the different end-uses and they can 

build their skills across those end-uses 

over time. 

7. Energy Efficiency Considerations 

DOE has promulgated, in separate 

rulemakings and under separate 

authority, energy conservation 

standards for several types of 

equipment, including products that are 

affected by this rule. See section V.C.1.b 

for information regarding DOE energy 

conservation standards that are 

applicable to the equipment addressed 

in this rule. New equipment subject to 

this rule would need to meet the DOE 

requirements and the requirements of 

the status change by the dates 

established in these rules.85 We note 

that for each of these end-uses, there are 

many compliant models already 

commercially available that do not use 

the refrigerants subject to a change of 

status. Furthermore, for all the 

equipment subject to today’s rule, there 

are examples, highlighted below, that 

show the energy efficiency using 

alternative refrigerants not subject to a 

change in status can be at least as good 

as, and often better than, the energy 

efficiency of equipment using 

refrigerants whose status will change to 

unacceptable. 

We note that we do not have a 

practice in the SNAP program of 

including energy efficiency in the 

overall risk analysis. We do, however, 

consider issues such as technical needs 

for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE 

standards) in determining whether 

alternatives are ‘‘available.’’ EPA 

recognizes that the energy efficiency of 

particular models of equipment is a 

significant factor when choosing 

equipment. We also recognize that the 

energy efficiency of any given piece of 

equipment is in part affected by the 

choice of refrigerant and the particular 

thermodynamic and thermophysical 

properties that refrigerant possesses. 

Although we cannot know what energy 

efficiency will be achieved in future 

products using a specific acceptable 

refrigerant, we can point to both actual 

equipment and testing results that show 

promise and often better results than the 

equipment using the refrigerants that we 

are finding unacceptable. (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198–0134, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0198–0184, EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198–0077). We recognize that, while 

theoretical efficiency of any given 

Rankine cycle is not dependent on the 

refrigerant used, the refrigerant, the 

design of the equipment, and other 

factors will affect the actual energy 

efficiency achieved. 

The efficiency can change based on 

the refrigerant chosen and there are 

various metrics, such as Total 

Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) and 

Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP), 

that account for climate effects of both 

emissions of the refrigerant and the 

possible emissions of greenhouse gases, 

primarily carbon dioxide, from the 

source of power to operate equipment. 

Quantification of the portions of TEWI/ 

LCCP from the refrigerant and energy 

use can only be done using broad 

assumptions that would not be 

applicable to all users of the myriad 

equipment models that are affected by 

today’s rule. As noted in section 

V.C.1.b, energy conservation standards 

set by the DOE apply to some of the 

equipment covered by today’s rule (e.g., 

stand-alone equipment, vending 

machines). If manufacturers were to 

offer equipment that meets, but does not 

exceed, that standard (or any other 

standard, such as ENERGY STAR®), 

then the indirect emissions from energy 

use would be the same regardless of 

which refrigerant were used. In that 

case, the refrigerant emissions would be 

the only factor that would decide which 

system has a lower TEWI or LCCP. 

Manufacturers that wish to exceed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

86Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 

2015. ‘‘Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global 

refrigeration target’’ (www.racplus.com/news/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigerationtarget/8680290.article). 

87Shecco, 2013b. ‘‘HCs gaining market 

prominence in US—view from The NAFE Show— 

Part 1’’ February 18, 2013. This document is 

accessible at www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/

viewprintable/3891. 

energy efficiency requirements may do 

so with any acceptable refrigerant they 

choose. Although some refrigerants will 

in the future be listed as unacceptable 

as determined in this final action, that 

does not directly affect the theoretical 

energy efficiency possible. As noted 

below, the results to date for actual 

equipment using acceptable alternatives 

do not show any significant decline in 

energy efficiency and often show the 

reverse. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 

0134, EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0184, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0077). 

While various sources of data on energy 

efficiency results from testing 

acceptable refrigerants show varying 

results, we believe that with new 

designs to use these refrigerants, any 

lower energy efficiency results can be 

overcome and likewise existing energy 

efficiency levels can be improved. 

Throughout the history of the SNAP 

program, EPA has seen the energy 

efficiency of refrigeration and airconditioning equipment increase, 

despite changing refrigerant options. In 

some cases, this was because new 

chemicals were developed that 

possessed unique properties that 

allowed high energy efficiency levels to 

be obtained. In many cases, 

technological improvement and 

optimization of equipment designs and 

controls has increased energy efficiency. 

Although today’s rule lists some 

refrigerants as unacceptable, we do not 

believe it will have a detrimental effect 

on this trend in increased energy 

efficiency. In fact, there are multiple 

case studies available that highlight the 

energy efficiency gains achieved by 

some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such 

as R–744, which remains acceptable for 

the refrigeration end-uses addressed in 

this rule, and R–290 and R–600a, which 

remain acceptable subject to use 

conditions for new stand-alone 

equipment and new vending machines. 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0134, 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Magazine, 2015).86 As part of our review 

of whether alternatives are ‘‘available,’’ 

we determined that equipment has been 

designed for and is capable of meeting 

existing requirements such as the DOE 

energy conservation standards. Below 

we highlight the energy efficiency gains 

that have been reported for the 

commercial refrigeration end-uses and 

end-use categories affected by today’s 

rule. 

Theoretical and prototype testing 

show similarly good energy efficiency 

results. For instance, in supermarket 

refrigeration, a theoretical analysis 

(Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014) 

examined the energy use of R–407A and 

R–410A, both of which are on the list 

of acceptable substitutes, against that of 

R–404A, which is listed as unacceptable 

in new supermarket systems as of 

January 1, 2017. Although this analysis 

found that both blends would see a 

3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in the 

low-temperature part of the store (e.g., 

frozen food, ice cream), they would 

achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the 

medium-temperature part of the store 

(e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled 

prepared food). Given that supermarkets 

have significantly larger use of mediumtemperature equipment, the net effect 

would be for the equipment using those 

alternatives to use less energy than 

equipment currently designed to use R– 

404A. We have pointed out in Section 

V.C.2 above that R–407A in particular is 

widely used and we might expect it to 

be used in a large share of supermarkets 

after the change of status date. This 

analysis showed similar increases in 

energy efficiency of new supermarket 

and stand-alone equipment using a 

variety of low-GWP refrigerants as 

compared with equipment currently 

using R–404A. 

The analysis also showed a slightly 

higher energy consumption by standalone equipment designed to use other 

alternatives as compared with one 

designed to use R–404A. One user of 

stand-alone equipment did not provide 

any specific results, but stated that ‘‘HC 

freezers are significantly more energyefficient.’’ (Ben and Jerry’s, 2014). True 

recently displayed several stand-alone 

units using R–290 refrigerant that were 

reported to be 15% more efficient than 

similar equipment using HFC–134a and 

R–404A.87 Similar results were seen by 

DuPont, who found that R–449A 

reduced energy usage when used in a 

display case connected to a remote 

condensing unit. They found that the 

energy consumption using this 

refrigerant was 2% to 3% less than R– 

404A in low-temperature tests and 8% 

to 12% less in medium-temperature 

tests. (EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 

0077). 

Similar results are being seen with 

vending machines. As noted in the 

NPRM, one purchaser of vending 

machines indicated that while 

introducing over one million units using 

R–744, they have increased the energy 

efficiency of their cooling equipment 

over 40% since 2000, at which time 

such equipment was exclusively using 

HFC–134a (Coca-Cola, 2014). More 

recently, it was reported that 78% of 

Coca Cola’s models (vending machines 

and stand-alone cases) perform more 

efficiently than HFC units. 

(Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Magazine, 2015). Furthermore, it has 

been reported that PepsiCo has placed 

nearly one million hydrocarbon vending 

machines on the market and that these 

use 20% less energy than ENERGY 

STAR requirements. 

As new products are designed to use 

particular refrigerants, manufacturers 

have the opportunity to change designs 

to take advantage of a given refrigerant’s 

characteristics. The redesign and 

development phase is also an 

opportunity to improve other 

components that will affect the overall 

efficiency of the equipment, such as the 

use of more efficient motors and 

compressors, improved heat exchangers, 

better controls, improved insulation 

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

products with doors), more efficient 

lighting, etc. These opportunities and 

the examples provided are indicative 

that when redesigning equipment for a 

new refrigerant, energy efficiency is 

often improved. Multiple companies 

have reported such gains in the 

equipment covered by today’s rule, for 

instance with R–407A or R–744 in 

supermarket systems, with HFC/HFO 

blends in remote condensing units, and 

with hydrocarbons and R–744 in standalone equipment and vending machines 

D. Foam Blowing Agents 

1. Background 

Foams are plastics (such as PU or 

polystyrene) that are manufactured 

using blowing agents to create bubbles 

or cells in the material’s structure. The 

foam plastics manufacturing industries, 

the markets they serve and the blowing 

agents used are extremely varied. The 

range of uses includes building 

materials, appliance insulation, 

cushioning, furniture, packaging 

materials, containers, flotation devices, 

filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. 

Some foams are rigid with cells that still 

contain the foam blowing agent, which 

can contribute to the foam’s ability to 

insulate. Other foams are open-celled, 

with the foam blowing agent escaping at 

the time the foam is blown, as for 

flexible foams. 

A variety of foam blowing agents have 

been used for these applications. 

Historically, CFCs and HCFCs were 

typically used to blow foam given their 

favorable chemical properties. CFCs and 

HCFCs are controlled substances under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42923 

the Montreal Protocol and subject to 

regulation under the CAA including a 

phaseout of production and import 

under section 604 for CFCs and section 

605(b)–(c) for HCFCs and use 

restrictions on HCFCs under section 

605(a). The regulations implementing 

section 610 of the CAA include a ban on 

sale or distribution of foam products 

blown with class I and class II ODS: 

However, for foam products containing 

a class II ODS, the ban is subject to an 

exception for foam insulation products 

as defined at 40 CFR 82.62. 

HCFCs, which have a longer phaseout period than CFCs since they are less 

potent ozone-depleting substances, have 

continued to be used to some extent as 

foam blowing agents. In addition, the 

SNAP program has found acceptable a 

variety of non-ODS blowing agents, 

including HFCs (e.g., HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc), hydrocarbons, 

carbon dioxide, water, methylal, methyl 

formate, HFO–1234ze(E), HFO– 

1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)). 

Blowing agents are approved on an 

end-use basis. The SNAP program 

considers the following end-uses: 

• Rigid PU (appliance foam) includes 

insulation foam in domestic 

refrigerators and freezers. 

• Rigid PU (spray, commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels) 

includes buoyancy foams, insulation for 

roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors, 

vending machines, coolers, and 

refrigerated transport vehicles. 

• Rigid PU (slabstock and other) 

includes insulation for panels and 

pipes. 

• Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock includes 

insulation for roofing and walls. 

• Flexible PU includes foam in 

furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and 

shoe soles. 

• Integral skin PU includes car 

steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe 

soles. 

• Polystyrene (extruded sheet) 

includes foam for packaging and 

buoyancy or flotation. 

• Polystyrene (extruded boardstock 

and billet) includes insulation for 

roofing, walls, floors, and pipes. 

• Polyolefin includes foam sheets and 

tubes. 

• Phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock includes insulation for roofing 

and walls. 

2. What is EPA finalizing for foam 

blowing agents? 

For foam blowing end-uses, EPA 

proposed to change the status for several 

substitutes, as of January 1, 2017, as 

follows: 

• HFC–134a and blends thereof as 

unacceptable for all end-uses; 

• HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– 

365mfc and blends thereof; and the HFC 

blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where they were on the list of 

acceptable substitutes at the time of 

proposal, except for rigid PU spray 

foam; and 

• The HFC blend Formacel TI as 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses where it was on the list of 

acceptable substitutes at the time of 

proposal. 

After considering the comments 

received on the proposed rule, EPA is 

making several changes to what it 

proposed in this final action. First, EPA 

is creating narrowed use limits for HFC– 

134a and blends thereof, for HFC– 

365mfc and blends thereof, and HFC– 

245fa and blends thereof for all foam 

blowing end-uses except rigid PU spray 

foam. EPA is also creating narrowed use 

limits for certain HFC blends, including 

Formacel TI, Formacel Z–6, and 

Formacel B, for those end-uses that were 

on the list of acceptable substitutes at 

the time of proposal. For all these 

substitutes, the narrowed use limits 

would be for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications where 

reasonable efforts have been made to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible due to performance 

or safety requirements. For all other 

uses in these identified end-uses, the 

status would change to unacceptable, 

with the exception of rigid PU spray 

foam, for which we are not taking final 

action in this rule. Second, we are 

establishing change of status dates that 

range from January 1, 2017, to January 

1, 2021. And, further, for the uses 

subject to the narrowed use limits, the 

status would change to unacceptable as 

of January 1, 2022. The change of status 

determination for each end-use is 

summarized in the following table: 

TABLE 8—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

End-use Substitutes Decision * 

Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance ................................. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam ............. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other ................ HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2019. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

88Wang 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. 

89Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 

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

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ 

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

TABLE 8—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Decision * 

Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Flexible Polyurethane ............................................... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Integral Skin Polyurethane ....................................... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet .................................... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS) HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel 

Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2021. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Polyolefin .................................................................. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock ................. HFC–143a, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications * and 

unacceptable for all other uses as 

of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable 

for all uses as of January 1, 2022. 

* Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been 

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

(a) What other alternatives does EPA 

find pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment? 

In the NPRM, EPA included a 

comparative analysis, end-use by enduse, of the substitutes for which EPA 

proposed to change the status and the 

other available alternatives. 79 FR at 

46151 to 46154. Most of the other 

alternatives that EPA identified as 

having lower risk than those for which 

we proposed to change the status have 

zero ODP or have negligible impact on 

stratospheric ozone. One alternative that 

contains chlorine, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM

1233zd(E)), has an ODP of 0.00024 to 

0.00034 and estimates of its maximum 

potential impact on the ozone layer 

indicate a statistically insignificant 

impact, comparable to that of other 

substitutes in the same end-uses that are 

considered to be non-ozonedepleting.88 89 For the uses on which we 

are taking final action, the substitutes 

remaining acceptable have significantly 

lower GWP than the substitutes for 

which we are changing the status, with 

GWPs ranging from zero (water, vacuum 

panels) to 124 (HFC–152a) as compared 

with GWPs ranging from 725 to 

approximately 1,500. The substitutes 

changing status and the substitutes 

remaining acceptable all can be used 

such that the recommended workplace 

exposure limit for the substitute is not 

exceeded in the end-uses where they are 

listed as acceptable, and thus, toxicity 

risks are comparable. 

Most of the substitutes that remain 

acceptable are not VOC (e.g., water) or 

are exempt from the definition of VOC 

under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 

51.100(s)) addressing the development 

of SIPs to attain and maintain the 

national ambient air quality standards. 

Examples of VOC-exempt blowing 

agents include acetone, CO2, ecomate, 

HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), methyl 

formate, and Solstice 1233zd(E). Other 

acceptable foam blowing agents are 

VOC, including saturated light HCs, 

Exxsol blowing agents, and methylal. In 

the risk screens that EPA performs when 

we review a substitute, we consider 

VOC emissions impacts, taking into 

account the rate of blowing agent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42925 

emissions of particular foam end-uses, 

estimated market size, and the presence 

of emission controls in manufacturing 

for different end-uses. Estimated 

emissions for these three substitutes is 

sufficiently low that we do not expect 

significant air quality impacts (ICF, 

2014h). The manufacturer of HFO– 

1336mzz(Z) claims that this substitute 

has low photochemical reactivity and 

has petitioned EPA to exempt it from 

the definition of VOC for purposes of 

the development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the national ambient air 

quality standards, but EPA has not yet 

acted on that petition. Given the large 

variety of alternatives that do not 

increase VOC emissions, and the 

estimated low impacts from those 

alternatives that are VOC, we believe 

that changing the status of certain HFC 

foam blowing agents through this action 

will not significantly increase 

environmental or health risks. 

Some of the substitutes that remain 

acceptable are flammable, but the 

hazards of these flammable compounds 

can be adequately addressed in the 

process of meeting OSHA regulations 

and fire codes in all end-uses except 

certain rigid PU spray foam 

applications. Examples of acceptable 

flammable blowing agents are HFC– 

152a, ecomate, Exxsol blowing agents, 

methylal, methyl formate, and saturated 

light hydrocarbons. 

Although EPA has listed a number of 

flammable alternatives as acceptable for 

most foam end-uses, that is not the case 

for rigid PU spray foams. Some of the 

lower-GWP, flammable alternatives that 

are listed as acceptable in other foam 

blowing end-uses, such as C3–C6 

hydrocarbons and methylal, are not 

acceptable for use in rigid PU spray 

foam. For rigid PU spray foam 

applications, flammability risks are of 

particular concern, because they are 

applied onsite, sometimes in proximity 

to hot, flammable substances such as 

tar. Flammability risks are more difficult 

to mitigate in rigid PU spray foam than 

in most other foam end-uses because, 

unlike in a factory setting, in many 

cases ventilation cannot be provided 

that removes flammable vapors and 

maintains them below the lower 

flammability limit, and it is not 

practical to make all electrical fixtures 

explosion proof when applying rigid PU 

spray foam in a residential building. 

There are three main types of rigid PU 

spray foam: High-pressure two-part 

spray foam systems, low-pressure twopart spray foam systems, and onecomponent foam sealants. 

For rigid PU spray foam, we are not 

taking final action in this rule. We 

intend to conduct a more extensive 

comparative risk analysis of the 

substitutes available before taking final 

action. Thus, the substitutes currently 

listed as acceptable for spray foam are 

not affected by this rule but may be the 

subject of future rulemaking. 

For more information on the 

environmental and health properties of 

the different foam blowing agents, 

please see the proposed rule at 79 FR 

46151 to 46154 and a technical support 

document that provides additional 

Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) 

in the docket. 

(b) When will the status change? 

For foam blowing agents, the time at 

which the status will change varies by 

end-use. 

For the flexible PU, polystyrene 

extruded sheet, and phenolic insulation 

board and bunstock end-uses, many 

users have already transitioned from the 

foam blowing agents subject to the 

status change. No commenters suggested 

that, or provided information that 

would suggest, a later change of status 

date is necessary for these end-uses. 

Therefore, as proposed, we are 

establishing January 1, 2017 as the date 

of the status change for those end-uses. 

For PU integral skin, the systems 

house BASF stated that they have had 

limited success thus far with HFO 

blowing agents in this end-use and 

would require at least two years to 

formulate and test a system and another 

six months for the new system to be 

commercialized and accepted by their 

customers in this end-use. However, 

this commenter did not provide specific 

details of the technical challenges they 

face nor why they believe two years, 

rather than a shorter time, is required 

for formulation and testing. Nor did the 

commenter explain why customer 

acceptance of the new system was 

related to technical feasibility that 

would require an additional six months 

beyond the time needed for formulation 

and testing. A period of two and a half 

years after issuance of the NPRM would 

be January 2017, rather than the July 1, 

2017 suggested by the commenter. 

There are alternative foam blowing 

agents in addition to HFOs in this enduse that pose less risk overall to human 

health and the environment, such as 

HFC–152a and light saturated 

hydrocarbons. Therefore, as proposed, 

we are establishing January 1, 2017, as 

the date of the status change for PU 

integral skin foam. 

For the rigid PU and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock end-use, we did 

not receive any specific technical 

information nor any comments stating 

that a change of status date later than 

the proposed date of January 1, 2017, 

was warranted. We received a general 

comment from EIA that the change of 

status date should be January 1, 2016, 

but they provided no information 

supporting this earlier date. We received 

a comment from one systems house, 

Huntsman, that provided specific 

technical information supporting a later 

change of status date for other PU enduses, but not PU and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock. Another systems 

house, Dow Chemical, specifically 

mentioned that polyisocyanurate 

boardstock has previously safely 

transitioned to use of hydrocarbons. 

Therefore, as proposed, we are 

establishing January 1, 2017 as the date 

of the status change for PU and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. 

For all other foam blowing end-uses 

for which we are taking final action, we 

received comments identifying 

technical challenges that mean other 

alternatives would not be available until 

a later date than January 1, 2017. 

Systems houses and appliance 

manufacturers also mentioned the need 

for third-party testing for end-uses such 

as extruded polystyrene boardstock and 

billet, rigid PU appliance, and rigid PU 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panels. Systems houses and DuPont, a 

manufacturer of foam blowing agents, 

also were concerned with the supply of 

lower-GWP foam blowing agents, 

especially supply of HFOs (HFO– 

1234ze(E) and HFO–1336mzz(Z)) and 

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

and indicated this was a constraint that 

prevents transitioning away from higher 

GWP HFCs by January 1, 2017. EPA 

agrees that there is validity to these 

concerns, as discussed further below for 

each end-use. 

For rigid PU slabstock, a systems 

house (Huntsman) commented they 

need additional time for testing and 

suggested a change of status date of 

January 1, 2019. Huntsman gave three 

specific reasons for why there should be 

a later change of status date than 

January 1, 2017 for this end-use: They 

believe it will take more than two years 

to develop products with alternatives, 

including third-party certification; they 

believe the long-term performance of 

HFO foams is not widely proven; and 

they believe there is insufficient supply 

and competition in the market for HFOs. 

Huntsman mentioned specific technical 

challenges, such as testing the 

compatibility and stability of the 

blowing agents with the polyol blends 

(i.e., other components needed in the 

foam formulation) and difficulties with 

stability of the catalysts when used with 

HFO blowing agents. They also stated 

that extended testing of more than six 

months was required to test strength, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

thermal insulation capability and 

dimensional stability of the foam, 

including aging testing. Huntsman also 

mentioned testing the fire properties of 

the foams with different foam blowing 

agents as well as optimization of the 

blends. Huntsman stated that these 

steps required one to one and a half 

years initial development by the 

systems house that would then be 

followed by trials and custom 

modification at their customers’ 

facilities using their specific equipment 

and claimed that would require one to 

two years in addition. Considering the 

technical constraints described by the 

systems house such as the need to 

research different catalysts and the 

lower stability of some alternative foam 

blowing agents, we agree that it is 

reasonable to expect it would take three 

and a half years after this rule is final 

for alternatives to be available for this 

end-use. Therefore, we are establishing 

a change of status date of January 1, 

2019, for rigid PU slabstock. 

For rigid PU appliance foam, one 

systems house, BASF, commented that 

it took five years for them to assist the 

appliance manufacturer Whirlpool in its 

conversion from an HFC-blown foam to 

an HFO-blown foam, excluding 

flammability certification testing. While 

the Agency recognizes that as industry 

builds experience with new blowing 

agents, future transitions may be quicker 

because of the knowledge gained from 

earlier transitions, the Agency also 

understands that it may not be possible 

by 2017 to complete a full transition to 

alternative blowing agents for all 

appliance manufacturers, particularly if 

appliance manufacturers are 

maintaining or improving the thermal 

insulating value of the foam to meet 

DOE energy conservation standards. 

Appliance manufacturers and BASF 

have described the difficulty and time 

needed to overcome technical 

difficulties when using alternative 

blowing agents, particularly olefins such 

as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene or HFOs, that result in cracking, 

thinning of the foam, and irreparable 

field failures of the equipment. 

Appliance manufacturers and systems 

house Huntsman also mentioned the 

need for energy efficiency testing and 

third-party certification of equipment 

and claimed that would require at least 

one and a half to two years after the 

system house’s development of foam 

formulations. However, the time 

required for ensuring adequate 

performance and third-party testing 

warrants a date as late as January 1, 

2020. In addition to technical 

constraints, we also considered that 

there is unlikely to be a sufficient 

supply of alternatives before January 1, 

2017, for appliance foam; the supply is 

likely to increase once a commercial 

plant for HFO–1336mzz(Z) opens 

(currently scheduled to open in 2017). 

We considered the supply constraints 

mentioned by both systems houses and 

chemical producers (until 2017), 

technical constraints with alternative 

foam blowing agents that could result in 

failed appliances with insufficient 

research (requiring one to two years), 

and the need for third-party certification 

of each model (requiring one and a half 

to two years), and we agree that it is 

reasonable to expect it would take until 

2020 for alternatives to be available for 

this end-use. We are establishing a 

change of status date of January 1, 2020, 

for appliance foam which allows 

sufficient time to work out these 

technical issues and to ensure a 

sufficient supply of various alternatives. 

For rigid PU commercial refrigeration 

and sandwich panels, equipment 

manufacturers and systems houses such 

as Huntsman, Dow and BASF 

mentioned similar issues to those raised 

for appliance foam. Huntsman 

mentioned technical challenges in 

developing new formulations for PU 

insulation foam, such as testing the 

compatibility and stability of the 

blowing agents with the polyol blends 

(i.e., other components needed in the 

foam formulation) and difficulties with 

stability of the catalysts when used with 

HFO blowing agents. They also stated 

that extended testing of more than six 

months was required to test strength, 

thermal insulation capability and 

dimensional stability of the foam, 

including aging testing. Huntsman also 

mentioned the need for testing fire 

properties of foams with different foam 

blowing agents and optimization of the 

blends. Huntsman stated that these 

steps required one to one and a half 

years initial development by the 

systems house in a process involving 

iterative testing. Huntsman specifically 

mentioned steps such as developing 

new foam formulations (one to one and 

a half years), trials at the customers’ 

plants (half to one year), third-party 

certification by UL, Intertek or Factory 

Mutual (one to one and a half years), 

and implementation of engineering 

changes at the customers’ facilities (half 

to one year). We also considered that 

based on the information and comments 

we have received, there is unlikely to be 

a sufficient supply of alternatives for 

this end-use before January 1, 2017, as 

discussed above for appliance foam. The 

Laboratory Products Association, whose 

members manufacture very low 

temperature freezers such as those used 

in the pharmaceutical industry, 

mentioned that some laboratory 

products using alternative foam blowing 

agents are medical devices listed by 

FDA, which would require re-approval 

after changing the blowing agent. 

Representatives of this application 

suggested coordinating with timelines of 

EU regulations (2022), without 

describing specifically why more time 

might be required for very low 

temperature freezers than for foam 

blowing agents in other commercial 

refrigeration equipment which also 

require third-party review. It is 

reasonable to expect that the timeframe 

required for commercial refrigeration 

foam and sandwich panels is 

comparable to that for appliance foam, 

requiring until 2017 for sufficient 

supply, and then another three years for 

development and testing of formulations 

and third-party testing of the resulting 

equipment or panels. We are 

establishing a status change date of 

January 1, 2020, for commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panel foams, 

based on the time needed to resolve 

technical issues and on supply of 

alternative foam blowing agents. 

For PU marine flotation foam, we 

received a comment from BASF 

indicating that systems houses will 

require at least a year for technical 

development, a year for certification 

testing to U.S. Coast Guard standards, a 

year for testing of the stability of the 

foam product, as well as one to two 

years for customer approval, given the 

large number of customers for this type 

of foam. BASF expected issues similar 

to those for appliance foam, such as 

dimensional stability and cracking, 

because injecting flotation foam is a 

similar process and uses similar 

polymers in the foam formulation. 

BASF asked that EPA clarify whether 

marine flotation foam fits under spray 

foam and whether this application is 

‘‘exempted’’ or instead must transition 

to alternatives. EPA consulted with the 

U.S. Coast Guard regarding their 

certification process and the necessary 

time for manufacturers to test and 

certify that they meet the requirements 

at 33 CFR part 183 (Boats and 

Associated Equipment), Subparts F 

(Flotation Requirements for Inboard 

Boats, Inboard/Outdrive Boats, and 

Airboats), G (Flotation Requirements for 

Outboard Boats Rated for Engines of 

More than 2 Horsepower), and H 

(Flotation Requirements for Outboard 

Boats Rated for Engines of 2 Horsepower 

or Less), which require all 

manufacturers of monohull recreational 

boats less than twenty feet in length 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42927 

(except sailboats, canoes, kayaks, 

inflatable boats, submersibles, surface 

effect vessels, amphibious vessels, and 

race boats) to provide sufficient flotation 

foam within the boat to ensure that the 

boat will not sink if the boat swamps or 

capsizes. This requirement allows the 

occupants to hold onto the boat until 

they can be rescued. We also met with 

representatives from the marine 

industry and heard directly from them 

about the necessary steps for transition. 

After considering the various steps 

needed to complete the transition, we 

conclude that the need for the systems 

houses to perfect formulations that 

perform similar or better than what is 

being used today will take additional 

time beyond what the Agency 

considered. In particular, in order to 

research and test foam formulations 

sufficiently to avoid issues with 

dimensional stability and field failures, 

and to ensure safety of the flotation 

foam and boats built with it, we expect 

it would take at least another two and 

a half to three years beyond the 

proposed date of January 1, 2017. Thus, 

we are establishing January 1, 2020 as 

the change of status date for marine 

flotation foam. We do not believe there 

is sufficient information at this time to 

support a change of status date later 

than January 1, 2020. However, given 

the concern for safety associated with 

marine floatation foam, we will monitor 

the situation carefully and consult with 

the U.S. Coast Guard. Given that under 

33 CFR 183 manufacturers are required 

to certify to the U.S. Coast Guard that 

their boats have sufficient flotation to 

meet the regulations, EPA recognizes 

that the U.S. Coast Guard may be able 

to provide information concerning 

certification with the alternatives. As 

January 2020 approaches, we will 

continue to consult with the U.S. Coast 

Guard and consider whether it is 

appropriate to adjust the change in 

status date or to otherwise modify the 

SNAP listing to address any uses for 

which there may be technical challenges 

beyond January 1, 2020. We are listing 

this use separately from spray foam due 

to differences in the manner in which 

the foam is dispensed which make this 

use more similar to appliance foam and 

commercial refrigeration foam than 

spray foam. Our understanding is that 

flotation foam is typically injected 

rather than sprayed. 

For polyolefin, there are niche 

applications and specialized plants that 

may have particular difficulty in 

transitioning away from HFC–134a 

because of the time required to build a 

pilot plant to work with products using 

a new gaseous blowing agent and to 

retrofit current facilities to work with an 

alternative blowing agent. One 

manufacturer, Pregis, stated that they 

must upgrade facilities if they are to 

safely adopt flammable blowing agents 

when they have been using a 

nonflammable agent in the past. EPA 

recognizes that such changes to a 

facility may take several years. 

Considering the heightened challenges 

with these specialized facilities, we are 

establishing a change of status date of 

January 1, 2020, for polyolefin. 

For XPS, manufacturers of XPS raised 

concerns about the energy efficiency of 

the foam using alternative agents, the 

extensive testing required, third-party 

certification, and the lack of alternatives 

and recommended that the status of 

HFC–134a change on January 1, 2021. 

Owens Corning mentioned specific 

steps such as laboratory studies to 

develop or test an alternative blowing 

agent, pilot tests, conversion of pilot 

testing to line production, quality 

assurance and quality control testing of 

the final product, and product 

certification. Dow and Owens Corning 

estimated it would take at least six years 

to convert multiple lines and multiple 

facilities from HFC–134a to an 

alternative. Owens Corning and Dow 

also cited an EPA memorandum 

supporting a transition away from 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as foam 

blowing agents, which found that four 

years was necessary. Owens Corning 

raised concerns about the viability of 

CO2 based on its impact on energy 

efficiency; the safety of hydrocarbons 

because of their flammability and the 

need to consider impacts of additional 

flame retardants on the foam; and the 

commercial availability of HFO– 

1234ze(E) and its technical viability. 

Dow stated that of the acceptable 

alternatives that EPA mentioned in the 

NPRM, only HFO–1234ze(E) has 

sufficiently low thermal conductivity 

and low permeability to meet industry 

standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). We agree 

that additional time is required to test 

and improve the quality of XPS 

manufactured using alternative foam 

blowing agents to ensure that it meets or 

improves upon thermal insulation 

requirements and passes third-party 

certification testing; it is reasonable to 

expect that at least five years is likely to 

be required for all steps to transition 

away from HFC–134a, given the status 

of current efforts to adopt lower-GWP 

alternatives for XPS. Members of the 

Extruded Polystyrene Association 

(XPSA) have stated that with XPS, it is 

not always possible to increase the 

thickness of the foam to maintain 

thermal insulation requirements, 

because other construction materials 

(e.g., boards) may limit the thickness of 

boardstock foam. Thus, if alternative 

foam blowing agents did not produce 

foam meeting thermal insulation 

requirements, the transition in this enduse might not reduce climate effects as 

intended. Given the technical 

constraints, the need for third-party 

certification testing, and building code 

requirements for energy efficiency that 

may limit the available blowing agents, 

we are establishing a change of status 

date of January 1, 2021, for XPS. EPA 

notes that there is now a plant 

producing HFO–1234ze(E) in 

commercial quantities (Honeywell, 

2015) and thus we do not believe that 

supply will limit the availability of 

alternatives. 

(c) Military and Space- and AeronauticsRelated Applications 

We proposed to create a narrowed use 

limit exception to the unacceptable 

listing for military and space, and 

aeronautics uses that would allow 

continued use of HFC and HFC blend 

foam blowing agents through December 

31, 2021. These blowing agents were 

proposed to be unacceptable for military 

or space- and aeronautics-related 

applications as of January 1, 2022. For 

the reasons discussed in the proposed 

rule, we are finalizing these provisions 

as proposed. 

EPA received comments from DoD 

and NASA supporting EPA’s proposed 

narrowed use limit, and suggesting that 

this additional time is needed to 

identify, test and qualify substitutes for 

certain specialty applications. Boeing 

commented that the DoD and NASA 

need adequate time to develop, test and 

qualify an acceptable substitute for 

HFC–245fa, which is used in many 

foams they rely on for density foam 

insulation for a number of space and 

defense applications (e.g., rockets). 

Boeing did not identify any specific 

technical challenges but raised a general 

concern that, based on its experience 

with developing substitutes for foam 

blowing agents and the normal course of 

time to develop and qualify a substitute, 

it will take until 2027 to fully test and 

qualify a substitute. We do not believe 

there is sufficient information at this 

time to support a change of status date 

later than January 1, 2022; however, as 

January 2022 approaches, we can 

consider whether it is appropriate to 

adjust the change in status date or to 

otherwise modify the SNAP listing to 

address any uses for which there may be 

technical challenges beyond January 1, 

2022. 

Users that wish to use one of the 

substitutes listed as acceptable, subject 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to narrowed use limits, in a military or 

space- and aeronautics-related 

application must make a reasonable 

effort to ascertain whether other 

substitutes or alternatives are 

technically feasible and, if not, to 

document such results. See 40 CFR 

82.180(b)(3). Users are not required to 

report the results of their investigations 

to EPA, but must retain the 

documentation in their files for the 

purpose of demonstrating compliance. 

Documentation should include 

descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the 

substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

(d) How will the requirements apply to 

exports and imports? 

Since regulations establishing the 

SNAP program were promulgated in 

1994, we have interpreted the 

unacceptability determinations in this 

sector to apply to blowing foam with the 

foam blowing agent and not to products 

made with foam (e.g., 65 FR 42653, 

42656; July 11, 2000). That is, an 

unacceptable foam blowing agent may 

not be used in, imported into, or 

exported from the United States. 

However, products made overseas with 

unacceptable foam blowing agents may 

be imported. For example, commercial 

refrigerators containing appliance foam 

blown with an unacceptable blowing 

agent may be imported into the United 

States, though appliances manufactured 

in the United States may not be 

manufactured with foam blown by that 

same agent. 

In the proposal, EPA took comment 

on a different interpretation of our 

regulations under which the 

unacceptability determination would 

apply to imported products containing 

closed cell foam that contain any of the 

blowing agents listed as unacceptable, 

as well as applying to the blowing agent 

itself. Public commenters stated that 

this was a significant departure from the 

Agency’s previous interpretation and 

suggested that EPA needed to explain 

the basis for such a change. In addition, 

some commenters pointed out that the 

proposal only allowed 60 days before 

this change in interpretation would 

apply to HCFC–141b, which they 

viewed as insufficient time to adjust. 

EPA is not finalizing this change in its 

interpretation in this action; however, 

we plan to continue assessing the merits 

of this change and may provide further 

explanation and opportunity for 

comment in a subsequent rulemaking. 

3. How is EPA responding to comments 

concerning foam blowing end-uses? 

(a) Timeline 

Comment: EPA received comments 

from more than 500 commenters 

concerning the proposal of January 1, 

2017, as the status change date for the 

foam blowing agents addressed in the 

proposed rule. EIA and Honeywell 

suggested an earlier date of January 1, 

2016, for all or most foam end-uses. 

Most other commenters suggested later 

dates, varying from July 1, 2017, to 

January 1, 2025. Some commenters 

indicated that they are small companies 

and they believe additional time is 

needed beyond that in the NPRM to 

reduce cost pressures. Some 

commenters suggested different dates 

for specific uses and gave a number of 

reasons for which dates would be 

appropriate for those uses. General 

reasons given for the need for additional 

time include: Time needed for capital 

investments, for employee training, for 

re-formulating systems; for designing, 

purchasing, awaiting receipt of and 

converting equipment; for obtaining 

local permits for VOC emissions; for 

meeting company and external testing 

requirements (e.g., UL/Factory Mutual 

(FM) fire safety requirements, DOE 

energy conservation standards, building 

codes, R-value testing for aged foam), 

and if switching to a flammable foam 

blowing agent, facility engineering 

design and refurbishment. Several 

commenters stated that there are no 

‘‘drop in’’ replacements, and that 

product research and development is an 

iterative process. Owens Corning cited 

EPA’s previous recognition of time 

limitations in the conversion away from 

HCFC–142b to HFC–134a, including an 

EPA staff memorandum that estimated a 

four-year transition time period in the 

foam sector. Some commenters also 

suggested that EPA adopt the same dates 

for transition for foams as in the 

European Union’s ‘‘F-gas’’ rule: 2020 for 

XPS and 2023 for other foam types. In 

addition, some commenters suggested 

that there is an insufficient supply of 

low-GWP foam blowing agents that will 

maintain energy efficiency and 

insulation value of foam. Huntsman 

stated that there will not be enough 

capacity and competition in the HFO 

foam blowing market by January 1, 

2017, to meet the needs of the PU foam 

industry. DuPont commented that while 

multiple low GWP alternatives will be 

available for foam, they will not be 

broadly available in the proposed 

timeframe. 

Response: EPA notes that in a number 

of foam blowing end-uses, the industry 

has already effectively transitioned 

away from HFCs and any additional 

transitions for these end-uses can be 

made by January 1, 2017. Further, we 

received no comments suggesting a later 

transition date is necessary specifically 

for these end-uses. We received 

comments suggesting that this change of 

status could be made by January 1, 

2016, but in the unlikely event that 

there are any end users that have not 

already transitioned, we are concerned 

that this date may be too soon to finish 

adopting an alternative. Therefore, the 

final rule retains the proposed change of 

status date of January 1, 2017, for those 

uses (polystyrene extruded sheet, 

flexible polyurethane, and phenolic 

insulation board and bunstock). In 

addition, we received no comments 

specific to rigid PU and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock 

that indicated there were challenges for 

this end-use that would prevent a 

transition to alternatives that pose lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment by January 1, 2017. EIA 

suggested that we set a status change 

date of January 1, 2016, for this end-use, 

but did not provide information 

supporting an earlier transition for this 

end-use. Therefore, we are retaining this 

date in the final rule for rigid PU and 

polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. 

EPA agrees that additional time is 

needed for other specific foam types and 

addresses the basis for establishing later 

change of status dates in the discussion 

of each end-use above. We appreciate 

and agree with commenters that note 

the importance of maintaining energy 

efficiency for appliances and buildings 

by ensuring there is adequate time to 

develop and deploy new formulations 

that meet or exceed existing thermal 

insulating values. Further, we recognize 

that third-party testing or witness 

testing will require additional time that 

may be outside the control of the 

companies manufacturing the foam. 

Some of this testing, such as fire safety 

testing for construction foams, could 

help reduce any potential flammability 

risks associated with the use of 

flammable foam blowing agents. 

Businesses of all sizes will be able to 

benefit from the later change of status 

dates in this final rule. We discuss 

comments specific to each end-use 

below in this section. 

Comment: Huntsman, a systems 

house, commented they need additional 

time for testing alternatives in the PU 

slabstock end-use and suggested a 

change of status date of January 1, 2019. 

Huntsman mentioned specific technical 

challenges with reformulating these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42929 

foam products, such as testing the 

compatibility and stability of the 

blowing agents with the polyol blends 

(i.e., other components needed in the 

foam formulation). They also stated that 

extended testing of more than six 

months was required to test strength, 

thermal insulation capability and 

dimensional stability of the foam, 

including aging testing. Huntsman also 

mentioned testing the fire properties of 

the foams with different foam blowing 

agents as well as optimization of the 

blends. Huntsman stated that these 

steps required one to one and a half 

years initial development by the 

systems house, to be followed by trials 

and custom modification at their 

customers’ facilities using their specific 

equipment that would require another 

one to two years. The commenter also 

raised concerns about whether sufficient 

supply of alternative foam blowing 

agents would be available by January 1, 

2017, and mentioned that there is 

currently a single supplier of a key low 

GWP foam blowing agent, trans-1- 

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

Response: Considering the technical 

constraints raised by the systems house, 

such as the need to research different 

catalysts and fire retardants and the 

lower stability of some alternative foam 

blowing agents, we agree that safer 

alternatives will not be available for this 

end-use for three to three and a half 

years. Therefore, we are establishing a 

change of status date of January 1, 2019 

for PU slabstock foams. 

Comment: Commenters suggested 

change of status dates for rigid PU 

appliance foam, ranging from July 1, 

2017 to January 1, 2020. BASF 

suggested a transition date of July 1, 

2017 for foam used in domestic 

refrigerators. In support of a July 1, 

2017, change of status date, BASF 

indicated that HFO-containing foams 

are incompatible with common 

polymers used in household 

refrigerators and that it will take a 

minimum of six months to perform 

durability and field testing and possibly 

to change construction materials to 

resolve this known problem, as well as 

at least six months for testing for 

compliance with federal energy 

conservation standards and 12 more 

months for conversion at each 

customer’s facility. BASF also stated 

that they had already developed 

commercially available systems using 

cyclopentane and HFOs, so they 

expected this transition to take less time 

than the five years that it took to assist 

the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool 

in its conversion from an HFC-blown 

foam to an HFO-blown foam, excluding 

flammability certification testing. 

Solvay commented that technical 

questions about alternatives still remain, 

such as whether substitutes other than 

HFCs attack panel walls or appliance 

walls, which could compromise product 

integrity and safety, and whether other 

alternatives adhere properly to 

appliance and panel walls, or to walls 

and roofs, which is necessary to satisfy 

energy efficiency mandates. Huntsman 

mentioned the need for energy 

efficiency testing and third-party 

certification of equipment that would 

require at least one and a half to two 

years after the system house’s 

development of foam formulations, 

which it estimated to take one to one 

and a half years. Huntsman suggested a 

change of status date of 2019 for PU 

appliance foam. The Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) raised concerns about the 

potential adverse impacts on appliance 

quality, performance, and longevity, as 

well as costs, of a transition by January 

1, 2017, and stated that the easiest and 

cheapest transitions have been done, 

and will be done, first. AHAM suggested 

a change of status date of 2020 for 

appliance foam to allow for 

coordination with DOE energy 

conservation standards that could take 

effect in 2020 for household 

refrigerators and freezers. In addition, 

AHAM claimed a 2020 change of status 

date was necessary because of the 

extensive time required for testing and 

third-party certification of multiple 

models, and additional time needed to 

ensure proper development of new 

alternatives to avoid field failures of the 

equipment. 

Response: We agree that it is 

important that appliance manufacturers 

are able to ensure the quality, 

performance, and useful lifetime of their 

equipment. Multiple commenters 

provided information and photographs 

demonstrating that improperly 

implemented alternative foam blowing 

agents can create defects in the 

appliances, such as cracking or 

improper adhesion to the appliance 

cabinet. BASF suggested that it would 

take closer to two and a half to three 

years to work out the technical issues 

since they have already developed 

commercially available systems using 

HFOs and hydrocarbons for other 

appliance manufacturers. Because of the 

time required for ensuring adequate 

performance and third-party testing, we 

believe that other alternatives will not 

be available for an industry-wide 

transition until January 1, 2020. In 

addition to technical constraints, we 

also considered that there is unlikely to 

be a sufficient supply of alternatives 

before the change of status date we 

proposed—January 1, 2017 for 

appliance foam. The supply is likely to 

increase once a commercial plant for 

HFO–1336mzz(Z) opens (currently 

scheduled to open in 2017) and thus 

supply would not be a concern for a 

change of status date of January 1, 2020. 

Comment: For rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration foams and sandwich 

panels, commenters suggested change of 

status dates ranging from July 1, 2018, 

to ten years after the rule is final. The 

majority of commenters suggested status 

change dates ranging from July 2018 to 

January 1, 2020. NAFEM and 

manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment such as 

Traulsen suggested a much later date of 

2025 for all modifications required for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including both foam blowing agents and 

refrigerant. 

As an initial matter, Huntsman and 

DuPont mentioned the lack of sufficient 

supply of alternatives to allow all foam 

users to convert in 2017. In support of 

a later change of status date, equipment 

manufacturers and systems houses such 

as Huntsman, Dow and BASF 

mentioned similar technical issues to 

those for appliance foam, such as the 

compatibility and stability of the 

blowing agents with the polyol blends 

and dimensional stability of the blown 

foam. BASF specifically mentioned 

reactions between the new blowing 

agents and the catalysts in the foam that 

could cause the finished foam to shrink, 

as well as the need to develop a new set 

of flame retardants. Commenters also 

stated that extended testing of more 

than six months was required to test 

strength, thermal insulation capability 

and dimensional stability of the foam, 

including aging testing. Huntsman 

specifically mentioned steps such as 

developing new foam formulations (one 

to one and a half years), trials at the 

customers’ plants (half to one year), 

third-party certification by UL, Intertek 

or Factory Mutual (one to one and a half 

years), and implantation of engineering 

changes at the customers’ facilities (half 

to one year), with iterative testing often 

required. Unified Brands and NAFEM 

suggested that there are limitations to 

using methyl formate in commercial 

refrigeration foam that would not allow 

a transition by January 1, 2017, stating: 

‘‘Methyl Formate is also 

environmentally friendly, but has had 

significant shrinkage issues once units 

have been placed in the field. This agent 

requires very specific foaming processes 

to be developed to ensure proper 

stability of the foam over time.’’ 

Response: We agree that there are a 

number of technical challenges that will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42930 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

require approximately four to five years 

for the industry as a whole to transition 

to alternatives, including stability of 

new formulations and difficulty with 

using existing catalysts with alternative 

foam blowing agents. We agree that 

there is unlikely to be a sufficient 

supply of alternatives for this end-use 

before the proposed change in status 

date January 1, 2017. However as 

discussed above for appliance foam, 

additional supply should be available in 

2017 when a new manufacturing plant 

is scheduled to open and there should 

be a more than sufficient supply to meet 

a status change date of January 1, 2020. 

The later dates of ten years after 

finalization of the rule or 2025 

suggested by NAFEM and other OEMs, 

appear to be based on the assumption 

that stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment would need to use propane 

or other flammable refrigerants and that 

changes would need to be made to 

building codes to support the adoption 

of these flammable refrigerants. 

However, as discussed above in section 

V.C on commercial refrigeration, there 

are other available refrigerants that are 

nonflammable. Moreover, the 

commenters did not make clear why, 

even assuming that alternative 

refrigerants would not be available until 

2025, the insulation foam for such 

equipment cannot be made using safer 

alternatives well before 2025. Thus we 

do not believe that safe alternative foam 

blowing agents will not be available 

before 2025. 

Comment: Honeywell stated that ‘‘the 

technical requirements [for flotation 

foam in boats] may be much simpler 

than other industries in which 

customers are already transitioning’’ 

and suggested that a transition date of 

January 1, 2016 might be achievable for 

this application. BASF commented that 

systems houses will require at least a 

year for technical development, a year 

for certification testing to U.S. Coast 

Guard standards, a year for testing of the 

stability of the foam product, as well as 

one to two years for customer approval, 

given the large number of customers for 

this type of foam. This commenter 

recommended that EPA set a change of 

status date no earlier than July 1, 2019. 

BASF expected issues seen with 

appliance foam also to exist with marine 

flotation foam, such as dimensional 

stability and cracking, because injecting 

flotation foam is a similar process and 

uses similar polymers in the foam 

formulation. Ninety-four letters from the 

marine industry comment that, 

according to their suppliers in the 

boating industry, a drop-in replacement 

for HFC–134a currently does not exist, 

and will not be readily available by 

2017. EPA received comments from 436 

boat manufacturers to the effect that the 

continued introduction of regulations 

on the boating industry 

disproportionately affects their small 

businesses because the cost of 

compliance with these standards is 

relatively equal across production 

scales. According to these comments, 

EPA’s proposed timeline for ‘‘phasing 

out’’ HFC–134a will have highly 

negative consequences for all facets of 

the marine industry, but it will have the 

greatest impact on their small boats, 

small businesses, and middle class 

customers. EPA received 93 letters from 

the marine industry stating that the 

boating industry consists primarily of 

small businesses that would face severe 

impacts as a result of their limited 

financial resources and limited 

influence on markets and supply chains. 

The National Marine Manufacturers 

Association (NMMA) also commented 

that the NPRM date would present a 

financial and logistical hardship for 

many small boat builders. NMMA urged 

the EPA to provide an extension of the 

proposed timeline. Commenters from 

the marine industry suggested 2022 as a 

transition date and mentioned the lack 

of availability of feasible options and 

marine application’s dependency upon 

chemical availability from the larger 

industry (e.g., HFC–134a for use in 

MVAC). These commenters also 

mentioned the need for testing to meet 

Coast Guard requirements at 33 CFR 

part 183. 

Response: Regarding the supply of 

alternatives, we recognize that a plant 

that would produce HFO–1234ze(E) in 

commercial quantities has recently been 

built (Honeywell, 2015). Additionally, 

supply of HFC–134a should not be an 

issue as many other uses of that 

substitute will be ending in the next 

several years. We do not agree that the 

certification processes will require 

additional time beyond EPA’s 

understanding at the time of the 

proposal. It is our understanding that 

HFOs can be used in this type of foam. 

However, as with appliance foams, we 

agree that systems houses will need 

time to perfect formulations that 

perform similar or better than what is 

being used today. In particular, issues 

with stability of the blown foam likely 

will require several years to work out, 

as discussed above for appliance foam. 

Considering this information, we are 

establishing January 1, 2020, as the 

change of status date for marine 

flotation foam. 

Comment: DuPont stated that 

polyolefin plants typically are 

specialized plants for niche applications 

and that this end-use may have 

particular difficulty in transitioning 

away from HFC–134a; DuPont suggested 

that EPA consult with manufacturers in 

this end-use on appropriate transition 

timing. One manufacturer, Pregis, stated 

that they must upgrade facilities if they 

are to safely adopt flammable blowing 

agents when they have been using a 

nonflammable agent in the past. They 

also suggested that EPA consider a 

change of status date of 2022 because of 

the time required to build a pilot plant 

to work with products using a new 

gaseous blowing agent (two years)— 

which has yet to begin—and the time to 

retrofit current facilities to work with an 

alternative blowing agent (another two 

years). 

Response: EPA recognizes that 

construction of a pilot plant and making 

the necessary changes to an existing 

facility could take approximately four 

years after this rule is final; however, it 

is not clear from Pregis’s description 

that they will require six years or more. 

Considering the heightened challenges 

with these specialized facilities, we are 

establishing a change of status date of 

January 1, 2020, for polyolefin. 

Comment: Manufacturers of XPS 

raised the energy efficiency of the foam 

using alternative agents as an issue, the 

extensive testing required, third-party 

certification, and the lack of alternatives 

as reasons for allowing until January 1, 

2021 for a change of status. Owens 

Corning mentioned specific steps such 

as laboratory studies to develop or test 

an alternative blowing agent, pilot tests, 

conversion of pilot testing to line 

production, quality assurance and 

quality control testing of the final 

product, and product certification. Dow 

and Owens Corning estimated it would 

take at least six years to convert 

multiple lines and multiple facilities 

from HFC–134a to an alternative. Owens 

Corning and Dow also cited an EPA 

memorandum supporting a transition 

away from HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as 

foam blowing agents, which found that 

four years was necessary. Owens 

Corning and XPSA commented that a 

more realistic status change date of 2021 

would also be consistent with the 

proposed status change date for MVAC. 

IP Moulding commented that it had 

tried to use CO2 and water in its 

extruded polystyrene molding process 

in the past and found it did not create 

sufficient internal pressure for their 

product; they are further investigating 

this option with their polystyrene 

supplier. Mexichem commented that 

carbon dioxide may not be suitable for 

the XPS industry because of its high 

thermal conductivity (low insulation 

value) and processing difficulties. 

Owens Corning raised concerns about 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42931 

the viability of CO2 based on its impact 

on energy efficiency; the safety of 

hydrocarbons because of their 

flammability and the need also to 

consider impacts of additional flame 

retardants on the foam; and the 

commercial availability of HFO– 

1234ze(E) and its technical viability. 

Honeywell commented that CO2 is an 

option for XPS, and that Dow has 

commercialized other solutions to 

improve energy efficiency with CO2

such as Dow’s XENERGY technology, 

which, according to Dow’s Web site, has 

up to 20% higher insulating properties 

than its STYROFOAMTM polystyrene 

product that uses HFC–134a. XPSA 

commented that one of the alternatives 

in the proposed regulations (HFO– 

1234ze(E)) is commercially suboptimized, and thus, XPSA’s members 

have not conducted testing to confirm 

that they can be used to produce 

products that provide comparable 

thermal efficiency or if there are any 

other issues that would make them an 

unacceptable alternative to HFC–134a. 

Dow stated that of the acceptable 

alternatives that EPA mentioned in the 

NPRM, only HFO–1234ze(E) has 

sufficiently low thermal conductivity 

and low permeability to meet industry 

standards (e.g., ASTM C 578). 

Response: Regarding concerns about 

the supply of HFO–1234ze(E), EPA 

notes that since the third quarter of 

2014, there has been a plant producing 

HFO–1234ze(E) in commercial 

quantities (Honeywell, 2015), and a 

smaller plant was providing lots upon 

request before this. Based on the 

information we received, we agree that 

additional time is required to test and 

improve the quality of XPS produced 

using alternative foam blowing agents 

and for third-party certification testing. 

Thus, it is reasonable to expect up to 

three years to complete formulation 

development and to conduct pilot 

testing, an additional two years to 

convert the existing plant and test the 

quality of the final product (with some 

overlap with the pilot testing period), 

and a year for certification testing. The 

total time needed is five and a half to 

six years. Therefore, we are establishing 

a change of status date of January 1, 

2021, for the XPS end-use. 

EPA agrees that additional work with 

CO2 as the blowing agent for XPS may 

be required to provide a better 

performing foam. Available information 

indicates CO2 has a higher thermal 

conductivity than HFC–134a or HFO– 

1234ze(E), and thus, would be expected 

to provide lower insulation value in the 

absence of major changes to the foam 

formulation. The information on Dow’s 

Web site that Honeywell references, 

although encouraging, is not sufficient 

to determine if CO2 is the sole blowing 

agent and if the XENERGY technology 

that Honeywell mentions may be used 

in all the applications where XPS blown 

with HFC–134a is currently used. The 

information provided by Honeywell 

implies that with additional work, XPS 

blown with CO2 could be more broadly 

available and could result in XPS with 

better foam insulation properties than 

current XPS foam using HFC–134a. 

Regarding comments suggesting that a 

status change date of January 2021 is 

appropriate because it would be 

consistent with the status change date of 

MY 2021 for MVAC, we first note that 

the transition for MVAC is required as 

of MY 2021, which will be completed in 

calendar year 2020. More importantly, 

the change of status date for each enduse is based on an evaluation of when 

alternatives will be available within that 

specific end-use. The change of status 

date for MVAC is not relevant for 

purposes of determining when safer 

alternatives will be available for the XPS 

foam blowing end-use. 

(b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing 

Status and Other Alternatives 

Comment: Some commenters, 

including commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers and 

environmental groups, support EPA’s 

proposal to find higher GWP HFCs 

unacceptable in all foam blowing enduses. Others, including manufacturers of 

household appliances and AHAM, 

advised EPA to reconsider the proposal, 

stating that it unnecessarily accelerates 

the transition away from widely used 

chemicals that still have ‘‘significant 

beneficial uses’’ in the United States 

(e.g., HFC–245fa in appliance foam). 

Solvay stated that the entire foam 

blowing sector should have been 

excluded from the proposal to change 

the status of certain HFCs. 

Response: We disagree that this action 

‘‘unnecessarily accelerates’’ the 

transition away from chemicals that 

have significant beneficial use. EPA 

applied the SNAP criteria when making 

determinations on what to include in 

the proposed rule. For the reasons 

provided above and in the proposed 

rule, we have determined in most foam 

blowing end-uses that there are other 

alternatives that pose less risk than 

those for which we are changing the 

status. 

Comment: DuPont commented that 

the category of Rigid Spray 

Polyurethane foam incorporates several 

product sub-categories, including high 

pressure spray foam and low pressure 

spray foam, each requiring different 

foam expansion agent characteristics 

and therefore different alternatives and 

different testing requirements. DuPont 

and the Center for the Polyurethanes 

Industry recommended that EPA create 

separate SNAP categories for highpressure spray foam systems, lowpressure foam systems, and one 

component spray foam sealants to allow 

appropriate change of status dates for 

each. DuPont suggested that EPA not 

change the status of HFC–134a in lowpressure two-part spray foam and in 

one-component foam sealants, because 

these applications require a gaseous 

foam blowing agent, and not a liquid 

agent such as HFC–245fa or HFC– 

365mfc. 

Response: EPA recognizes that a 

gaseous foam blowing agent is required 

for these uses, unlike for high-pressure 

two-part spray foam systems, and thus, 

there is reason to differentiate between 

low-pressure two-part spray foam 

systems, one-component foam sealants, 

and high-pressure two-part spray foam. 

We intend to conduct a more extensive 

comparative risk analysis of the 

substitutes available in each of these 

spray foam categories before taking final 

action. Thus, the substitutes currently 

listed as acceptable for spray foam are 

not affected by this rule but may be the 

subject of future rulemaking. 

Comment: Unified Brands and 

NAFEM commented that water-based 

blowing agents are environmentally 

friendly, but suffer from poorer 

insulation performance and 

vulnerability towards processing 

temperatures that would consequently 

require improved control of fixture 

temperatures. Thermo Fisher 

commented that water-blown foam 

could lead to equipment with reduced 

energy efficiency and negative 

environmental impact because of its 

poor insulating properties. 

Response: It is EPA’s understanding 

that water-blown foams offer lower 

energy efficiency than foams blown 

with a number of other blowing agents. 

This is not a barrier to use for foam 

applications that do not require thermal 

insulation or for which increased 

thickness of the foam is not an issue. 

However, thickness of the foam is likely 

to be an issue for foams where the 

dimensions cannot be increased, such as 

foams used in refrigerated transport or 

sometimes in construction foams such 

as XPS or PU spray foam. 

Comment: Mexichem commented that 

using hydrocarbons as a blowing agent 

may result in less thermally efficient 

XPS (as compared to use of HFC-134a). 

Unified Brands and NAFEM suggested 

there are complications with use of 

hydrocarbons in commercial 

refrigeration foam, and that ‘‘Pentane 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

based blowing agents are strong 

candidates due to their insulation 

performance, but require all foam 

fixtures and processes to be 

redeveloped’’ due to flammability. Dow 

stated that that HC technology is well 

understood, and it has been broadly 

deemed inappropriate for use as a 

blowing agent for XPS and SPF building 

and construction products in the United 

States. Dow also stated that HCs have 

been proactively adopted for use with 

polyisocyanurate foams, where they 

may be used safely. EIA commented that 

hydrocarbons have been used as 

blowing agents in Europe since 1992, 

including in insulation foams. 

Response: It is EPA’s understanding 

that hydrocarbons such as pentane and 

isopentane have better thermal 

conductivity than CO2, but not as good 

as that of HFCs or HFOs. This is not a 

barrier to use for foam applications that 

do not require thermal insulation or 

where increased thickness of the foam is 

acceptable. We also recognize that 

additional safeguards must be taken 

when using hydrocarbon foam blowing 

agents, such as improving ventilation, 

training staff, and explosion-proofing 

electrical fixtures. These steps can 

reasonably be taken in a manufacturing 

facility but are more difficult for 

installation in place, as with PU spray 

foam. 

Comment: Honeywell commented 

that in many instances, customers are 

seeing benefits such as better 

performance, energy efficiency, 

nonflammability, and better product 

yields (less foam for the same 

performance) when using 1233zd(E) 

(trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 

ene). This commenter claimed that this 

foam blowing agent has been 

commercial in the United States in 

spray foam applications for more than a 

year, and in Japan, EU and China for a 

variety of foam applications, including 

appliance, panel and spray foam. 

Several users of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene mentioned its 

properties, such as improved 

compressive strength, lower density, 

better dimensional stability, and higher 

R-value (All-Weather Insulated Panels, 

West Development Group for spray 

foam, UTMC for commercial 

refrigeration foam in refrigerated 

transport). 

Response: Available information 

indicates that trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene has many 

performance characteristics, including 

improved insulation value, that should 

allow its adoption as a foam blowing 

agent in appliance foam, sandwich 

panels, and some spray foam 

applications. 

(c) Environmental and Energy Impacts 

of Foam Blowing Agents 

Comment: A number of commenters 

provided comments on the potential 

impact of the proposal on greenhouse 

gas emissions. AHAM state that they 

believe the proposed rule is unnecessary 

to protect the environment, because the 

use and potential emissions of high 

GWP HFC blowing agents for household 

refrigerators sold in the U.S. market are 

far less than what EPA estimated. 

DuPont comments that given that HFCs 

remain in these closed cell foams and 

provide valuable insulating properties, 

emissions of HFCs from foam 

production are roughly one-third of total 

HFC use in foams, or about 5% of total 

HFC emissions on a CO2 equivalent 

basis. Two commenters in the foam 

blowing industry comment that EPA 

should consider the greenhouse gas 

emissions and energy savings over the 

lifetime of a product. 

Response: Some commenters have 

suggested that because current HFC 

blowing agents, including HFC–134a in 

XPS, result in foams with energy 

efficiency that reduce overall GHG 

emissions, EPA should not change the 

status of HFC-134a, or at least should 

consider overall lifecycle climate 

impacts. While we do not consider 

energy efficiency as part of our overall 

risk analysis, we believe that other 

alternatives, such as olefin foam 

blowing agents, could improve energy 

efficiency even more than HFC–134a 

and other high GWP HFC blowing 

agents. Further, as explained below in 

our discussion of energy efficiency, 

listing higher GWP HFCs unacceptable 

likely would improve, rather than 

worsen, overall lifecycle GHG 

emissions. EPA recognizes that 

additional time is needed to ensure that 

the formulations provide equal or better 

thermal insulating value given the 

iterative process that can involve 

chemical manufacturers, system houses 

and end users. The change of status 

dates reflect the need to ensure that 

these technical challenges can be 

addressed. 

Comment: Imperial Brown comments 

they cannot know if what is developed 

as an alternative will enable the 

resulting foam panels to meet DOE 

thickness requirements, because there is 

not a Class 1 polyurethane foam system 

on the market that utilizes a new 

blowing agent. Thermo-Kool comments 

that new foam formulations are not 

guaranteed to have insulating 

capabilities comparable to what is 

available today to satisfy DOE 

requirements. American Panel 

Corporation does not intend to use 

pentanes in its foam blowing 

application, because the U.S. DOE has 

established new requirements that do 

not permit pentanes for walk-in panel 

manufacturers, as they would increase 

the panel thickness size. International 

Cold Storage, Crown Tonka, and 

ThermalRite Walk-Ins stated that lower 

R-Values will require additional 

insulation thickness to meet the energy 

regulation, thereby requiring expensive, 

complex, and costly modifications to 

new walk-in coolers and freezers that 

may sit side-by-side with identical 

existing equipment that offers the same 

degree of performance and protection. 

Response: EPA recognizes that 

different foam blowing agents result in 

different insulation values. We note that 

some of the acceptable alternative foam 

blowing agents, such as HFO–1234ze(E), 

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

ene, and HFO–1336mzz(Z), are expected 

to provide better insulation value than 

the HFC blowing agents listed as 

unacceptable in this action. EPA is not 

specifically aware of which, if any, of 

these alternatives has been tested by 

Factory Mutual (FM) and already 

qualifies as a ‘‘Class 1 polyurethane 

system.’’ Other foam blowing agents are 

expected to have comparable or lower 

insulation value, such as CO2, ecomate 

and hydrocarbons. Given the variety of 

foam blowing agents available, we 

expect that foam products that need 

higher energy efficiency will have foam 

blowing agents available that will result 

in lowering the GHG emissions and 

energy savings over the lifetime of a 

product. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that they believed the proposed 

rule will result in increased energy 

consumption, potentially negating the 

overall net GHG emission reductions. 

One commenter, AMS, believes the 

effect of the proposed rule on energy 

consumption is a big unknown at this 

time. Structural Composites and 

Compsys, Inc., stated that the efficiency 

and reduced manufacturing impact of 

their PRISMA technology offsets the 

climate impacts from the small amount 

of HFC–134a used in their foam. ACMA 

stated that composite panels made using 

foam blown with HFC–134a for 

refrigerated transport dramatically 

reduce fuel usage, and therefore, 

exhaust emissions, because the panels 

are so lightweight. They suggested, 

therefore, that the environmental 

benefits of a transition away from HFC– 

134a are outweighed by emissions 

reductions achieved through lighter, 

HFC-134a blown panels. Honeywell 

provided information on the relative 

energy efficiency, in terms of lambda 

values, for CO2, HFC–134a and HFO– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42933 

1234ze(E), and stated that HFO– 

1234ze(E)’s energy efficiency properties 

are comparable and in some instances 

better than HFC–134a for XPS. 

Mexichem claimed that HFO–1234ze(E) 

is not nearly as energy efficient as HFC– 

134a and stated that it is not clear that 

XPS produced with HFO–1234ze(E) will 

provide the same thermal efficiency as 

achieved with HFC–134a, because 

HFO–1234ze(E) is not available for the 

industry to begin product testing. 

DuPont comments that the emerging 

low GWP HFO foam alternatives can 

deliver marked energy efficiency 

improvements over current alternatives 

when they become commercially 

available. 

Response: EPA notes that some of the 

acceptable alternative foam blowing 

agents, such as HFO–1234ze(E), trans-1- 

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

HFO-1336mzz(Z), can provide better 

insulation value than the HFC blowing 

agents we are listing as unacceptable. 

Contrary to Mexichem’s unsupported 

assertion that HFO–1234ze(E) is not 

nearly as energy efficient as HFC–134a, 

another commenter provided 

information showing that HFC–134a has 

a lambda (thermal conductivity) value 

of 29 to 30, while HFO–1234ze(E) has a 

lambda value of 27 to 30 that shows 

better insulation (Honeywell, 2014b). 

Other foam blowing agents have 

comparable or lower insulation value, 

such as CO2, ecomate and hydrocarbons. 

Given that there are multiple foam 

blowing agents available that have lower 

thermal conductivity and better 

insulation value in each of the end-uses 

where we are changing the status of one 

or more foam-blowing agent, we expect 

that foam products that require higher 

energy efficiency will be able to use 

foam blowing agents that will result in 

lowering the GHG emissions and energy 

savings over the lifetime of a product, 

rather than raising it. For example, 

home appliances that currently use 

HFC–245fa could use trans-1-chloro3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene or HFO– 

1336mzz(Z) and thereby ensure they 

meet DOE energy conservation 

standards. Similarly, information from 

the supplier of HFO–1234ze(E) indicates 

that XPS would maintain or improve its 

energy efficiency if HFO–1234ze(E) 

were used instead of HFC–134a as the 

blowing agent. Manufacturers of 

alternative panels or composite 

materials have not provided information 

showing that use of an alternative 

blowing agent would adversely affect 

the weight of foam formulations and 

thereby reduce fuel efficiency. 

(d) Cost Impacts 

Comment: Commenters express 

concern about the costs of the transition 

required by the proposal, including: 

• capital costs; 

• research, reformulation, and testing; 

• technology and equipment; 

• conversion, system re-design, and 

retrofit; 

• certification; 

• costs for the recreational boating 

industry; 

• increasing cost of HFC–134a; 

• increases in costs to consumers; 

• market competitiveness impacts; 

• reduction in new product 

development; 

• retesting required due to lack of 

coordination with timing of 

requirements for DOE energy 

conservation standards; 

• economic impacts on branding; 

• cost savings; and 

• other general economic concerns. 

Some commenters, such as 

Mexichem, Solvay, and AHAM, 

suggested that it was not necessary to 

change the status of HFC–134a and 

other HFC foam blowing agents or to 

require industry to incur the costs that 

these changes require. Other 

commenters, such as NMMA, NAFEM, 

XPSA, and their members, requested 

additional time for the change of status 

of HFC–134a and other HFC foam 

blowing agents in order to allow them 

to spread costs out over time and thus 

make costs of the transition more 

manageable. Imperial Brown suggested a 

later status change date to allow foam 

manufacturers to create sufficient 

supply, thereby alleviating a potential 

cost premium associated with scarcity 

of newer alternatives. 

Response: EPA recognizes that 

transitioning to new foam blowing 

agents is likely to require capital costs 

and investments in research, updated 

equipment, and related financial 

impacts. However, as explained in more 

detail in another response to comment, 

under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 

CFR 82.180(a)(7), the only cost 

information that EPA considers as part 

of its SNAP review is the cost of the 

substitute under review (and not the 

cost of transition when a substitute is 

found unacceptable). 

Although cost is not a consideration 

in our decision to change the status of 

certain substitutes, we note that based 

on technical concerns, the final rule 

establishes a later change of status date 

in a number of end-uses, which will 

allow manufacturers to spread costs 

over time. Regarding whether there will 

be a sufficient supply of alternatives, we 

considered this issue in establishing the 

change of status dates and believe that 

there will be more than adequate 

supplies of alternatives. This will also 

contribute to lower costs. We have 

addressed elsewhere why it is necessary 

to change the status of substitutes for 

the various end-uses based on whether 

alternatives that pose lower risk are 

available. Where we concluded that 

safer alternatives were available, we 

determined it was necessary to change 

the status. Thus, we disagree with the 

commenters who suggest that it is not 

necessary to change the status of various 

HFC foam blowing agents. 

VI. What is EPA finalizing for the 

HCFCs addressed in this rule? 

A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs 

and what is being finalized in this rule? 

In the August 6, 2014 NPRM, EPA 

proposed to change the listings from 

acceptable to unacceptable for three 

HCFCs: HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, and 

HCFC–22 (79 FR 46155). As discussed 

in the proposed rule, EPA proposed to 

modify the listings for these three 

HCFCs and blends containing these 

HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with 

other parts of the stratospheric 

protection program, specifically section 

605 and its implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 

610 and its implementing regulations at 

40 CFR part 82 subpart C. HCFCs are 

subject to the use restrictions in CAA 

section 605(a) and these specific HCFCs 

have been restricted under EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 

82 subpart A since January 1, 2010. 

Additionally, the nonessential products 

ban under CAA section 610 restricts sale 

and distribution of certain products 

containing or manufactured with these 

three HCFCs. We believe it is important 

that the SNAP listings not indicate that 

these HCFCs may be used when another 

program under title VI of the CAA 

would prevent such use. Thus, we are 

aligning the requirements. The HCFCs 

addressed in this rule were previously 

listed as acceptable or acceptable 

subject to use conditions in the aerosols, 

foam blowing, fire suppression and 

explosion protection, sterilants, and 

adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. For 

more information, please refer to the 

relevant section of the proposed rule as 

noted above. The change of status 

determinations for the HCFCs addressed 

in this rule are summarized in the 

following table: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

90These three HCFCs have previously been listed 

as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP 

sectors. 

TABLE 9—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR HCFCS ADDRESSED IN THIS RULE

Sector and end-use Substitutes Decision 

Aerosols—Propellants .............................................. HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b .................................... Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

Aerosols—Solvents .................................................. HCFC–141b and blends thereof ............................. Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

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

thereof 

Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

Fire suppression—Total flooding .............................. HCFC–22 ................................................................ Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

Sterilants ................................................................... Blends containing HCFC–22 ................................... Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

Adhesives, coatings, and inks—All end-uses .......... HCFC–141b and blends thereof ............................. Unacceptable effective [DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] 

Consistent with the proposal, in 

today’s final rule, EPA is modifying the 

listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, 

and HCFC–22, as well as blends that 

contain these substances, from 

acceptable to unacceptable 90 in nonrefrigerant sectors—specifically, 

aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire 

suppressants, cleaning solvents, 

sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and 

inks. 

As provided in the proposal, EPA is 

not addressing HCFC use for 

refrigeration and air conditioning in this 

rulemaking because CAA section 605(a) 

and our implementing regulations allow 

for continuing use of HCFCs to service 

equipment. Recognizing that other 

HCFCs became subject to the use and 

interstate commerce prohibitions in 40 

CFR 82.15(g) after issuance of the 

proposed rule, and that limited 

exemptions are available in section 

82.15(g) for certain of those HCFCs, EPA 

is not modifying the SNAP listings for 

HCFCs other than HCFC–141b, –142b, 

and –22 and blends containing those 

substances at this time. EPA may revisit 

the acceptability of other HCFCs in a 

later rulemaking as appropriate. We are 

finalizing the proposal that the listings 

be modified 60 days following issuance 

of a final rule. 

B. How is EPA responding to public 

comments concerning HCFCs? 

Comment: EPA received a few 

comments on the proposed 

modifications affecting HCFCs, 

primarily on whether the 

unacceptability determination should 

apply to imported products containing 

closed cell foam that contain any of the 

blowing agents listed as unacceptable, 

as well as applying to the blowing agent 

itself. 

Response: As explained in section 

V.D.2.c, above, EPA is not finalizing the 

proposed change to the import of closed 

cell foam products blown with an agent 

listed as unacceptable. We also 

explained that we plan to continue 

assessing the merits of this change and 

may provide further explanation and 

opportunity for comment in a 

subsequent rulemaking. Thus, as of the 

time of the status change, foam blowing 

agents containing HCFC–141b, –142b, 

and –22 and blends are prohibited from 

being used or imported into the United 

States, but foam products or products 

containing foam made with these 

agents, such as appliances or furniture, 

may still be imported. 

Comment: Hussmann Corporation 

asked for four years from the issuance 

of the final rule to make any changes to 

the acceptability of HCFC–141b in foam 

blowing applications, stating that 

considerable time is needed to review 

what impact new foam has to structural 

integrity and product efficiency. The 

commenter stated that this timing 

would would allow manufacturers to 

make a transition to new products while 

remaining within the EPA’s new HCFC 

allocation rule (which will completely 

phase out HCFC refrigerants in five 

years). 

Response: EPA would like to clarify 

that anyone still using HCFC–141b to 

blow foam in the United States is likely 

out of compliance with longstanding 

regulations promulgated under the 

SNAP program (CAA section 612), as 

well as the HCFC phaseout (CAA 

section 605). Under SNAP, HCFC–141b 

was listed as unacceptable effective on 

November 29, 2004, for all foam uses, 

with a limited exemption for use in 

space vehicle, nuclear, and defense 

applications, as well as for research and 

development for foreign customers (see 

69 FR 58269). Under the HCFC phaseout 

program, EPA stopped the production 

and import of HCFC–141b for use in 

foams in 2003 (40 CFR 82.16(b)) and 

prohibited its use as of January 1, 2010, 

with limited exceptions (40 CFR 

82.15(g)). All remaining exemptions for 

the use of HCFC–141b ended on January 

1, 2015. Therefore, this current rule 

does not affect the use of HCFC–141b to 

blow foam in the United States; it only 

ensures the SNAP list is aligned with 

other existing regulations under Title VI 

of the CAA. 

If the commenter is referring to 

applying the unacceptability 

determination for HCFC–141b to 

products containing HCFC–141b, as 

discussed above in this section, EPA is 

not finalizing the proposed change to 

the import of closed cell foam products 

blown with an agent listed as 

unacceptable. 

VII. How is EPA responding to other 

public comments? 

A. Authority 

1. General Authority 

Comment: The Agency received 

several comments, including those from 

Solvay, Arkema, AHAM, BASF, 

Mexichem, NRDC and IGSD, Whirlpool, 

and Bally Refrigerated Boxes on its 

authority to change the status of HFC– 

134a and other substitutes that were 

addressed in the proposed rule. NRDC 

and IGSD asserted that under section 

612 of the CAA ((42 U.S.C. 7671k), EPA 

has the authority—if not the affirmative 

mandate—to remove the proposed 

substances from the SNAP list of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42935 

91http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/

riskscreenfire.pdf 

acceptable substitutes. They quoted 

from section 612(a), emphasizing that 

replacement of ODS with substitutes 

that reduce overall risk is to occur ‘‘to 

the maximum extent practicable’’ (42 

U.S.C. 7671k(a)). They stated that under 

section 612(c)(2), EPA has authority to 

decide which substances may and may 

not be used in the SNAP sectors. 

Finally, they asserted that in speaking of 

both alternatives ‘‘currently’’ available, 

and those that are ‘‘potentially’’ 

available, Congress recognized that the 

universe of alternatives will evolve over 

time, so that as additional alternatives 

become available, EPA has an obligation 

to revise the SNAP list to ensure that the 

substances included will minimize 

‘‘overall risks to human health and the 

environment’’ (42 U.S.C. 7671k(c)). 

In contrast, Mexichem, Solvay, 

AHAM/Electrolux and Arkema asserted 

that the proposed actions were outside 

the scope of Title VI, section 612 of the 

CAA, and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 

Specifically, these commenters asserted 

that Congress and EPA designed the 

SNAP program to safeguard 

stratospheric ozone, and not to address 

climate change and greenhouse gases. 

AHAM stated that Title VI of the CAA 

does not provide EPA broad authority to 

regulate refrigerants, foams and 

chemicals in circumstances unrelated to 

ozone depletion. Mexichem stated that 

the repeated references in section 612 to 

class I and class II substances 

demonstrate that Congress was 

concerned with ODS. 

Several commenters emphasized 

evaluation of a substitute in relation to 

ODS. Mexichem asserted that EPA 

recognized ‘‘the limited nature of the 

statute’’ in 1994 when it promulgated 

the statement of purpose and scope for 

the SNAP program (59 FR 13044, Mar. 

18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In its 

comment, Mexichem provided a 

quotation from the statement of purpose 

and scope, suggesting that substitutes 

are to be compared only to ODS. 

Arkema quoted an EPA ‘‘Guide to 

Completing a Risk Screen’’ 91 for the fire 

suppression sector as explaining that 

environmental effects would be 

evaluated by comparing the substitute’s 

GWP to the GWP of the ODS it replaces. 

Solvay contended that changing the 

listing status of a previously approved 

substitute would eliminate the user’s 

ability to use a substance that met the 

statutory objective of providing better 

overall health and safety in comparison 

to the use of an ODS in a specific enduse. 

Several commenters also asserted that 

nothing has happened with respect to 

any attribute or impact of the HFCs 

addressed in this rulemaking that would 

warrant a change in the initial decisions 

to list HFCs as acceptable. 

Response: EPA agrees with NRDC and 

IGSD’s conclusion that the Agency has 

authority to take the change of status 

actions included in the proposed 

rulemaking and disagrees with 

comments suggesting that the sole 

purpose of section 612 and the SNAP 

program is to safeguard the ozone layer. 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to take 

action when the Agency (1) determines 

that a substitute may present adverse 

effects to human health and the 

environment, and (2) identifies an 

alternative that reduces overall risk to 

human health and the environment and 

is currently or potentially available. 

That provision makes clear that the 

mandate of section 612 is to reduce 

overall risk; it does not limit the risks 

of concern to those associated with 

ozone depletion. In addition, while 

section 612 refers repeatedly to class I 

and class II substances, it also refers 

repeatedly to substitutes or alternatives, 

requiring specific actions with regard to 

such substances. 

EPA cannot fulfill its section 612(c) 

mandate to compare alternatives with a 

view to reducing overall risk without 

considering impacts related to issues 

other than ozone depletion. Toward that 

end, the SNAP regulations require 

submitters to include information on a 

wide range of factors in addition to 

ODP, including GWP, toxicity, 

flammability, and the potential for 

human exposure (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 

1994 and codified at 40 CFR 82.178). 

Further, the SNAP regulations state that 

EPA will consider atmospheric effects 

(including GWP), exposure assessments, 

toxicity data, flammability, and other 

environmental impacts such as 

ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts 

(59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 

82.180). 

In addition, while section 612(a) 

states the Congressional policy of 

reducing overall risk in broad terms, 

section 612(c) specifically requires EPA 

to compare the risk of the substitute 

under review to other substitutes or 

alternatives. In that regard, Mexichem’s 

comment omits a crucial phrase in the 

statement of ‘‘purpose and scope’’ in the 

SNAP regulations. The complete 

statement reads: ‘‘The objectives of this 

program are . . . to promote the use of 

those substitutes believed to present 

lower overall risks to human health and 

the environment, relative to the class I 

and class II compounds being replaced, 

as well as to other substitutes for the 

same end-use, and to prohibit the use of 

those substitutes found, based on the 

same comparisons, to increase overall 

risks [emphasis added]’’ (59 FR 13044, 

Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 82.170). In 

addition, Arkema’s reference to a single 

document containing language 

mentioning a substitute-to-ODS 

comparison ignores the large number of 

risk screens that EPA has prepared over 

the years that compare the ODP and 

GWP, and other environmental and 

health attributes, of substitutes to those 

of other substitutes, as well to those of 

ODS (e.g., risk screens in the following 

dockets: EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0798 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0118.) Further, 

EPA’s listings over the years have 

included comparisons of substitutes to 

other available alternatives in the same 

end-uses (e.g., 67 FR 13272, 67 FR 

77927, 68 FR 50533, 69 FR 58903, 71 FR 

15589, 71 FR 55140, 71 FR 56359, 74 FR 

21, 74 FR 50129, 75 FR 34017, 76 FR 

17488, 76 FR 61269, 76 FR 78832, 77 FR 

47768, 77 FR 58035, 78 FR 29034, 79 FR 

62863). The substitute-to-substitute 

comparison is essential to fulfilling 

EPA’s obligation under section 612(c) to 

determine whether there are alternatives 

that reduce overall risk as compared 

with the substitute under review. 

To the extent possible, the Agency has 

always sought to ensure that our SNAP 

decisions are informed by the most 

current overall understanding of 

environmental and human health 

impacts associated with available and 

potentially available alternatives. In that 

regard, the Agency has, since the 

inception of the SNAP program, 

asserted its authority, consistent with 

the language of section 612(c) and the 

section’s statement of congressional 

policy, to review substitutes listed as 

acceptable and to take action with 

respect to those substitutes on the basis 

either of new information generally, 

including that related to overall risk, or 

of the availability of new alternatives 

that pose less overall risk. Specifically, 

in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule, 

EPA made clear that ‘‘the Agency may 

revise these [listing] decisions in the 

future as it reviews additional 

substitutes and receives more data on 

substitutes already covered by the 

program’’ (59 FR 13044, 13047). We 

interpret section 612 as allowing both 

addition of new, safer alternatives to the 

listings and removal from the listings of 

substitutes found to pose more risk 

overall than other available alternatives. 

With regard to additional data on 

substitutes already covered by the 

program, the Agency has previously 

responded to the evolution of scientific 

and technical information by revisiting 

the listing status of a substitute. For 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42936 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

92Climate Change and President Obama’s Action 

Plan. June, 2013. Available in the docket and online 

at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan. 

93Response to Oz Technology’s Petition (Aug 30, 

1996). 

94www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/submit/

appguide.pdf. 

95Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/replace. 

96Collins, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/ 

american/replace. 

97 Id. 

example, on the basis of new 

information on toxicity, EPA took action 

in January of 2002 to change the listing 

for HBFC-22B1 from acceptable, subject 

to use conditions to unacceptable (67 FR 

4185, January 29, 2002; 40 CFR 82 

subpart G, appendix J). 

With regard to additional alternatives, 

the suite of available or potentially 

available alternatives changes over time. 

For example, over the past several years, 

and as standards and familiarity with 

the safe use of various alternatives has 

developed, EPA has listed several 

specific flammable refrigerants as 

acceptable for some end-uses subject to 

use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 40 CFR 82 subpart 

G appendix R; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 

2015). Most of these refrigerants (e.g., 

ethane, propane, isobutane, HFC–32) are 

not new molecules; rather, their recent 

listing as acceptable subject to use 

conditions is based on an increased 

understanding of their ability to be used 

in a manner that would reduce overall 

risk. The availability of those 

alternatives enables a broader review of 

comparative risk under section 612(c). 

Further, we disagree with the notion 

that our understanding of the impact of 

HFCs has remained static. Our 

understanding of the impact that HFCs 

have on climate has evolved and 

become much deeper over the years. As 

mentioned elsewhere in this 

rulemaking, a significant indication of 

that change can be seen in EPA’s 

December 7, 2009, Endangerment 

Finding (74 FR 66496, 66517, 66539) 

which makes clear that like the ODS 

they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. In 

addition, HFCs are now in widespread 

usage. The most commonly used HFC is 

HFC–134a. HFC–134a is 1,430 times 

more damaging to the climate system 

than carbon dioxide (see Table A–1 to 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 98). Further, 

HFC emissions are projected to 

accelerate over the next several decades; 

if left unregulated, emissions are 

projected to double by 2020 and triple 

by 2030.92 Additional information 

concerning the peer-reviewed scientific 

literature and emission scenarios related 

to HFCs is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (e.g., Akerman, 2013; 

EPA, 2013b and 2014; IPCC, 2007 and 

2013; IPCC/TEAP 2005; Montzka, 2012; 

Velders et al., 2009). This information 

was taken into account in this 

rulemaking. 

2. Second Generation Substitutes 

Comment: Several comments focused 

on the term ‘‘replace’’ in section 612(c), 

suggesting that once a company has 

switched to a non-ODS alternative, it is 

no longer ‘‘replacing’’ a Class I or Class 

II ODS in its products, and that it is 

unsupportable to read ‘‘replacement’’ as 

a continuous process rather than as a 

single event. Solvay stated that the 

proposed rule would require users that 

have already ‘‘replaced’’ ODS with nonODS to make a second replacement, and 

that EPA lacks authority to require this 

second replacement. Arkema stated that 

the statutory terms ‘‘replace’’ and 

‘‘replacement’’ must be given their 

ordinary meanings, and that to replace 

an ODS means to take the place of an 

ODS. Arkema further noted that EPA 

defines a ‘‘substitute or alternative’’ in 

its SNAP regulations as something 

‘‘intended for use as a replacement for’’ 

an ODS (59 FR 13044, Mar. 18, 1994 and 

40 CFR 82.172). Arkema concluded that 

Congress and EPA designed the SNAP 

program to regulate things taking the 

place of ODS, not to replace substances 

with no ozone depletion potential. 

Arkema contended that EPA has 

interpreted the statute and regulations 

as excluding non-ODS. In support of 

this argument, Arkema quoted the 

preamble to the initial SNAP rule as 

saying that ‘‘a key issue’’ was ‘‘whether 

there exists a point at which an 

alternative should no longer be 

considered a class I or class II substitute 

as defined by 612’’ (59 FR 13044, 

13052). The commenter further quoted 

the preamble to that rule as saying that 

‘‘if a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) is 

introduced as a first-generation 

refrigerant substitute for [an ODS], it is 

subject to review and listing under 

section 612. Future substitutions to 

replace the HFC would then be exempt 

from reporting under 

section 612 . . . .’’ (id.). In addition, 

Arkema quoted a 1996 petition 

response 93 as stating that EPA does not 

review substitutes for non-ozonedepleting substances such as HFC–134a. 

Arkema also quoted the SNAP 

Instruction Manual 94 as instructing 

applicants to specify the ODS being 

replaced. 

AHAM commented that the appliance 

industry no longer intends HFCs as a 

substitute or replacement for ODS. The 

commenter stated that there are very 

few remaining models that ever used 

ODS, and that the substances used in 

today’s models are not substitutes or 

replacements in the common-sense 

meaning of those words. 

Arkema further stated that EPA 

should be precluded from comparing 

non-ODS first-generation alternatives 

(such as HFC–134a) to secondgeneration non-ODS alternatives (such 

as HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744). 

Arkema contended that none of these 

second-generation compounds is a 

‘‘substitute’’ for SNAP purposes. 

Response: In this rulemaking, the 

Agency is revising the listing status of 

substitutes that are direct replacements 

for ODS. Arkema admits as much on 

p. 8 of their comment letter, where they 

describe HFC-134a as a ‘‘first generation 

refrigerant substitute.’’ While we are not 

exploring the full scope of the ‘‘first 

generation’’ concept in this action, there 

is no question that HFC–134a directly 

replaced ODS in the relevant sectors. 

For example, with respect to foam 

blowing, when HFC–134a was listed as 

acceptable in foam blowing 

applications, foam was still being blown 

with HCFCs (59 FR 13044, March 18, 

1994; 64 FR 30410, June 8, 1999). In this 

action, we are not addressing the extent 

of EPA’s authority to revise the listings 

of alternatives that are arguably indirect 

replacements for ODS, sometimes 

termed ‘‘second-generation 

alternatives.’’ 

EPA does not agree with the 

commenters who suggest that while 

HFC–134a may have replaced ODS at 

one point in time, it no longer does so. 

The term ‘‘replace’’ is not defined in 

section 612, EPA therefore interprets 

this term as it is commonly used. 

Dictionary definitions can provide 

insight into how a reasonable or 

ordinary person would interpret the 

term. Dictionary definitions of ‘‘replace’’ 

include the following: ‘‘to be used 

instead of’’ 95 ‘‘to take the place of,’’ 96

and ‘‘to provide a substitute or 

equivalent for.’’ 97 None of these 

definitions suggests that something used 

‘‘instead of’’ or ‘‘to take the place’’ of 

something else ceases to ‘‘replace’’ it 

simply due to the passage of time. Nor 

does the Agency view the replacement 

of a ODS with a substitute (e.g., HFC– 

134a) as limited to the first time a 

product manufacturer uses the 

substitute. Indeed, in the preamble to 

the initial SNAP rule, we interpreted the 

term ‘‘replace’’ to apply ‘‘each time a 

substitute is used.’’ (59 FR 13044, 

13047). We noted that ‘‘[u]nder any 

other interpretation, EPA could never 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42937 

98This is reflected in the appendices to 40 CFR 

part 82, subpart G. 

99We note that the requirement under section 612 

does not limit our analysis of whether there are 

‘‘safer’’ alternatives only to ‘‘substitutes’’ listed 

under the SNAP program. Rather section 612(c) 

refers to ‘‘alternatives’’ that are currently or 

potentially available. Thus, in instances where we 

are aware of other alternatives that may not have 

completed SNAP review and we have sufficient 

information for those alternatives relative to the 

SNAP review criteria, we may include those 

alternatives in our comparative analysis. In this 

action, for purposes of the refrigeration end-uses, 

we included in our comparative analysis several 

substances we were concurrently reviewing under 

SNAP and which we have taken action to list as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions (April 10, 

2015, 80 FR 19453) and for which we are taking 

action concurrently with this rule to list as 

acceptable. 

effectively prohibit the use of any 

substitute, as some user could always 

start to use it prior to EPA’s completion 

of the rulemaking required to list it as 

unacceptable’’ (Id.). Thus, the fact that 

HFC–134a is already in use as a 

replacement for ODS does not mean that 

its future use is any less of a 

replacement. In context, the language 

that Arkema quotes (‘‘whether there 

exists a point at which an alternative 

should no longer be considered a class 

I or II substitute’’) does not suggest that 

a substance that directly replaces the 

ODS might somehow cease to qualify as 

an ODS substitute. Rather, it raises the 

question of whether a substance that 

indirectly replaces the ODS might fail to 

qualify. That question is not addressed 

in this rulemaking because this 

rulemaking addresses only substances 

that are direct replacements for ODS in 

the relevant sectors. 

Similarly, the mere passage of time 

does not mean that the substances 

addressed in this rulemaking have 

somehow ceased to be ‘‘substitutes or 

alternatives’’ under the regulatory 

definition at 40 CFR 82.172. No 

commenter suggests that at the time of 

their initial SNAP listing these 

substances were anything other than 

‘‘chemicals . . . intended for use as a 

replacement for a class I or II 

compound.’’ Rather, commenters assert 

that these substances are no longer 

intended for use as an ODS 

replacement. However, introducing a 

temporal aspect into this definition 

would mean that a product 

manufacturer could make an initial 

substitution for a class I or II substance 

90 days after providing the required 

notification to EPA and thereafter 

continue to use the substitute while 

disclaiming any intent to replace the 

ODS. This is not a supportable 

interpretation because it would allow 

the manufacturer to circumvent SNAP 

requirements simply by beginning to 

use a substitute prior to its SNAP 

listing. 

In addition, EPA implements the 

section 612(c) mandate to list 

substances as acceptable or 

unacceptable ‘‘for specific uses’’ by 

listing substitutes on an end-use or 

sector basis.98 Similarly, the Agency 

views transition as occurring on an enduse by end-use or sector-by-sector basis, 

not—as one commenter suggests—on a 

model-by-model basis. Thus, the act of 

‘‘replacing’’ is not limited to the 

redesign of a particular model, or the 

introduction of a new model, but 

instead occurs repeatedly within a given 

end-use or sector. 

Contrary to Solvay’s comment, EPA 

has authority to regulate the continuing 

replacement of ODS with HFC–134a and 

the other substitutes whose listing status 

is addressed in this action. In this 

rulemaking, EPA considered whether 

such replacement should continue to 

occur given the expanded suite of other 

alternatives to ODS in the relevant enduses and our evolving understanding of 

risks to the environment and public 

health. The commenter’s line of 

reasoning would undermine EPA’s 

ability to comply with the statutory 

scheme reflected in section 612(c), 

under which EPA’s authority to prohibit 

use of a substitute is tied to information 

on overall risk and the availability of 

substitutes. 

Regarding Arkema’s suggestion that 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744 are 

not ‘‘substitutes’’ for SNAP purposes 

and thus they cannot be used as part of 

a review of whether EPA should change 

the status of HFC–134a, we disagree. 

HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a and R–744 (as 

well as the other substances we used for 

comparison purposes in this 

rulemaking) 99 are currently listed as 

acceptable or acceptable, subject to use 

conditions under SNAP. Thus, we have 

separately taken action to treat these 

substances as substitutes for the 

purposes of section 612(c) and the 

corresponding regulatory provisions. 

We are not re-examining in this 

rulemaking whether the substances used 

for comparison purposes in this action 

qualify as substitutes. Rather, in this 

rule, we are making listing 

determinations for substances that are 

direct substitutes for ODS based on their 

overall risk compared to these other 

alternatives. 

3. GWP Considerations 

Comment: The Agency received 

several comments relating to EPA’s 

authority to consider GWP in its 

comparative risk evaluation, and to take 

action on the basis of GWP. Specifically, 

Solvay and Mexichem stated that while 

section 602 of the CAA requires EPA to 

publish the GWP of each listed class I 

and class II substance, the Agency’s 

authority is limited by the language 

stating that it ‘‘shall not be construed to 

be the basis of any additional regulation 

under this chapter.’’ Solvay stated that 

this language expresses Congress’s 

intent that no provision of Title VI— 

including, but not limited to, § 602, 

§ 608, § 612, and § 615—provides 

statutory authority for the Agency to 

implement an overarching program 

under which it can force users to cease 

using substances with global warming, 

but not ozone-depleting, potentials. 

Mexichem commented that if GWPs of 

listed compounds cannot be the basis of 

further regulation under Title VI, it 

follows that regulation based on 

comparisons of GWPs of both listed 

substances and unlisted alternatives was 

intended by Congress equally to be 

foreclosed. Commenters asserted that 

EPA inappropriately used the physical 

characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for 

risk; failed to assess the significance to 

climate change of the emissions 

reductions estimated to be brought 

about by the action as they relate to risk 

for each substance in each sector 

covered; failed to assess and account for 

indirect climate impacts; and failed to 

apply its customary tests for 

consideration of atmospheric effects. 

BASF commented that EPA proposed 

to find HFCs unacceptable because they 

have ‘‘high GWPs as compared with 

other available or potentially available 

substitutes in those end-uses and pose 

significantly greater overall risk to 

human health and the environment.’’ 

BASF noted that while CAA section 612 

does require an assessment of risk, it 

does not explain how that assessment 

should be done. BASF added that 

whatever that assessment should 

involve, it is possible that Congress did 

not intend GWP to be part of that 

assessment. 

Response: As noted by some 

commenters, section 602 of the CAA 

calls on EPA to publish the GWP for 

each class I or class II substance, but 

goes on to say that this mandate ‘‘shall 

not be construed to be the basis of any 

additional regulation under this 

chapter.’’ Consistent with this 

provision, we are not relying on section 

602 as authority for the action being 

taken in this rulemaking. Rather, we are 

relying on section 612, which 

specifically provides that EPA is 

required to list a substance as 

unacceptable if it ‘‘may present adverse 

effects to human health or the 

environment’’ where EPA has identified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42938 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

alternatives that are currently or 

potentially available and that ‘‘reduce 

the overall risk to human health and the 

environment.’’ 

Considerations of atmospheric effects 

and related health and environmental 

impacts have always been a part of 

SNAP’s comparative review process, 

and the provision of GWP-related 

information is required by the SNAP 

regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 

82.180). The issue of EPA’s authority to 

consider GWP in its SNAP listing 

decisions was raised in the initial rule 

establishing the SNAP program. In the 

preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, 

EPA stated: ‘‘The Agency believes that 

the Congressional mandate to evaluate 

substitutes based on reducing overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment authorizes use of global 

warming as one of the SNAP evaluation 

criteria. Public comment failed to 

identify any definition of overall risk 

that warranted excluding global 

warming’’ (59 FR 13044, March 18, 

1994). 

Consistent with that understanding, 

the 1994 SNAP rule specifically 

included ‘‘atmospheric effects and 

related health and environmental 

impacts’’ as evaluation criteria the 

Agency uses in undertaking 

comparative risk assessments (59 FR 

13044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also 

established the requirement that anyone 

submitting a notice of intent to 

introduce a substitute into interstate 

commerce provide the substitute’s GWP 

(see 40 CFR 82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, 

we have considered the relative GWP of 

alternatives in many SNAP listing 

decisions. For example, in the decision 

to list C7-Fluoroketone as acceptable we 

noted that ‘‘C7 Fluoroketone’s GWP of 

about 1 is lower than or comparable to 

that of other non-ozone-depleting 

substitutes in heat transfer uses, such as 

HFE-7100 with GWP of 297, HFC–245fa 

with a GWP of 1030, and CO2 with a 

GWP of 1’’ (77 FR 47768, August 10, 

2012). In that same action, EPA also 

considered ODP, VOC status, 

flammability, toxicity and exposure, 

concluding that ‘‘EPA finds C7 

Fluoroketone acceptable in the end-use 

listed above because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by C7 Fluoroketone is lower than 

or comparable to the risks posed by 

other substitutes found acceptable in the 

same end-use’’ (id). Similarly, in finding 

the use of isobutane and R–441 

acceptable subject to use conditions in 

household refrigeration, we included 

an-in depth discussion of the relative 

GWP of these and other alternatives 

listed for household refrigeration (76 FR 

78832, December 20, 2011). 

In response to comments that EPA 

inappropriately used the physical 

characteristic of GWP as a surrogate for 

risk and that EPA failed to assess the 

significance to climate change of the 

emissions reductions estimated to be 

brought about by the action, as they 

relate to risk for each substance in each 

sector covered, we note that GWP is a 

relative measure and that if comparable 

amounts of two substitutes are used, 

then the relative climate effects of 

resultant emissions will be higher for 

the substitute with higher GWP. EPA 

considers factors such as charge size of 

refrigeration equipment and total 

estimates of production in its 

assessment of environmental and health 

risks of new alternatives, so we can 

consider if there would be substantial 

differences that might affect total 

atmospheric emissions. We believe that 

we have appropriately considered GWP 

as a metric for comparing climate effects 

of substitutes. 

In response to comments that EPA 

failed to assess and account for indirect 

climate impacts, we note that we do not 

have a practice in the SNAP program of 

including indirect climate impacts in 

the overall risk analysis. We do consider 

issues such as technical needs for 

energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE 

standards) in determining whether 

alternatives are ‘‘available,’’ and have 

followed that practice in this 

rulemaking. We believe that there is a 

sufficient range of acceptable 

alternatives that end users will be able 

to maintain energy efficiency levels We 

also note that federal energy 

conservation standards will continue to 

ensure that equipment regulated by this 

rule will not increase its indirect 

climate impacts. See in particular 

section V.C.7 for a discussion on energy 

efficiency for commercial refrigeration 

products and section V.D.3.c for a 

response to comments on energy 

efficiency of foams. 

In this action, EPA used the same 

comparative risk approach it has used in 

the past, including the consideration of 

GWP. 

4. Takings 

Comment: Solvay asserted that the 

delisting of already approved 

alternatives constitutes a taking in 

violation of the Fifth Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution. Solvay commented 

that the delisting would effectuate a 

regulatory taking for which the United 

States would owe ‘‘just compensation’’ 

to regulated parties, including Solvay, 

that have made significant investments 

in furtherance of U.S. policies under the 

CAA and the Montreal Protocol. Solvay 

quoted the Supreme Court case Lucas v. 

South Carolina Coastal Council as 

saying that ‘‘any limitation [that 

prohibits all economically beneficial 

uses of real property] . . . cannot be 

newly legislated or decreed (without 

compensation), but must inhere in the 

title itself, in the restriction that 

background principles of the State’s law 

of property and nuisance already place 

upon land ownership’’ (505 U.S. 1003, 

1029 (1992)). 

Response: The first question in a 

takings analysis is whether there is a 

property interest protected by the Fifth 

Amendment. The commenter does not 

identify the property interest that is the 

subject of the alleged ‘‘taking.’’ While 

the commenter cites a case involving 

real property, no real property is at stake 

here. To the extent the commenter has 

a property interest in the HFCs it 

imports or produces, such interest 

would be limited to quantities already 

in existence, and not those that might be 

produced or imported in the future. In 

any event, EPA’s change in the listing 

status of HFCs does not effectuate a 

taking. First, EPA’s action does not 

‘‘completely deprive’’ the commenter of 

‘‘all economically beneficial us[e]’’ of 

the HFCs it produces or imports. See 

Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528, 538 

(2005), quoting Lucas v. South Carolina 

Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 

(1992). EPA is not listing all HFCs as 

unacceptable in all end-uses; rather, 

EPA is listing certain HFCs as 

unacceptable in specified end-uses. In 

addition, EPA is adopting change of 

status dates that provide ample time for 

HFCs already in existence to be sold. 

Thus, some ‘‘economically beneficial 

use’’ of the HFCs remains. In such 

situations, courts typically consider 

several factors in determining whether a 

regulatory taking has occurred. Those 

factors include ‘‘the character of the 

governmental action, its economic 

impact, and its interference with 

reasonable investment-backed 

expectations.’’ PruneYard Shopping 

Center v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74, 83 

(1980). 

Here, the change in the listing status 

of certain HFCs for specified end-uses is 

designed to ‘‘promote the common 

good’’ (see Penn Central Transportation 

Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 

(1978)). The alternatives to which EPA 

compared these HFCs in this action 

were found to pose less overall risk to 

human health and the environment in 

the specified end-uses. Thus, removing 

these HFCs from the list of acceptable 

substitutes for these end-uses provides a 

public benefit. Regarding the economic 

impact of this action, EPA recognizes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42939 

that the impact will vary for the 

different end-uses. For example, for 

some foam blowing agent end-uses, 

transitioning to other alternatives is 

likely to require capital costs and 

investments in research, updated 

equipment, and their related financial 

impacts. In comparison, for some 

aerosol propellant uses and some 

refrigeration end-uses, depending on the 

alternative selected, there may be little 

or no need for capital costs or research. 

However, EPA notes that chemical 

producers have been investing in lowGWP alternatives for years, and many 

have either submitted SNAP 

notifications or expressed interest in 

submitting SNAP notifications 

concerning new molecules and blends 

of existing molecules. 

The commenter could not have had a 

reasonable investment-backed 

expectation that these HFCs would 

continue to be listed as acceptable 

indefinitely in all end-uses, or in any 

specific end-use, because EPA expressly 

stated in the preamble to the initial 

SNAP rule that ‘‘the Agency may revise 

these [listing] decisions in the future as 

it reviews additional substitutes and 

receives more data on substitutes 

already covered by the program’’ (59 FR 

13044, 13047). In addition, EPA also 

noted the ‘‘significant global warming 

potentials’’ of some HFCs and stated 

‘‘EPA is concerned that rapid expansion 

of the use of some HFCs could 

contribute to global warming’’ (id. at 

13,071). EPA characterized HFCs as a 

‘‘near-term option for moving away from 

CFCs,’’ not as a long-term solution. 

5. Montreal Protocol/International 

Comment: Solvay comments that 

HFCs are not regulated under the 

Montreal Protocol and are not Class I or 

Class II substances under Title VI. 

Mexichem states that the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico have proposed to 

amend the Montreal Protocol to provide 

an across-the-board phase down of 

HFCs, but until then, EPA’s regulatory 

authority under Title VI is limited to 

ODS. AHAM adds that if at some point 

EPA is authorized to phase out HFCs 

consistent with future international 

obligations that may constitute a more 

appropriate avenue for phase-down 

measures. AHAM believes there is 

minimal purpose in promoting an 

international regulatory regime if EPA is 

going to apply what it considers to be 

a ‘‘blunt and inappropriate’’ regulatory 

instrument domestically, regardless of 

the shape of a future international 

scheme. AHAM comments that the 

appliance industry’s transition from 

HFCs is well underway, and EPA’s 

proposal should reflect and support this 

progress, rather than impede it. Five 

commenters commented on the 

perceived inconsistency of the proposed 

timeline and the proposed amendments 

to the Montreal Protocol to adopt a 

gradual phase down of HFCs. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

Montreal Protocol does not currently 

regulate HFCs. Nevertheless, several 

sections of Title VI call on EPA to take 

measures that are not required by the 

Montreal Protocol but are 

complementary to the ODS phaseout. 

These sections include, in addition to 

section 612, sections 608 (national 

emissions reduction program), 610 

(nonessential products), and 611 

(labeling). In addition, while HFCs are 

not a Class I or Class II substance under 

the Clean Air Act, HFCs are substitutes 

for Class I and Class II ODS, and section 

612 and its implementing regulations 

specifically call on the agency to restrict 

substitutes for ODS where the Agency 

has identified other available or 

potentially available alternatives that 

reduce overall risk to human health and 

the environment. 

The CAP considers both domestic and 

multilateral action to address HFCs. The 

United States co-proposed and is 

strongly advocating for an amendment 

to the Montreal Protocol to phase down 

production and consumption of HFCs. 

EPA sees no conflict between the United 

States’ strong support for a global phasedown and this domestic action. The 

amendment proposal calls for a phasedown of production and consumption of 

a group of HFCs, including HFC–134a as 

well as HFC–125 and HFC–143a 

(components of R–404A, R–507A and 

other blends), on a total CO2-equivalent 

basis. It applies phase-down steps to 

this group of HFCs as a basket and does 

not assign individual deadlines to 

specific HFCs or address specific uses. 

6. Absence of Petitions 

Comment: Solvay questioned whether 

the Agency has the authority to issue 

this proposed rule in the absence of one 

or more petitions that fully satisfy the 

requirements of § 612(d). Solvay 

commented that while Congress granted 

EPA the authority to create an initial list 

of approved substitutes for ODS under 

§ 612(c), § 612(d) specifies that 

additions or deletions to the SNAP list 

must be proposed via petition, and that 

petitions ‘‘shall include a showing by 

the petitioner that there are data on the 

substance adequate to support the 

petition.’’ Solvay stated that the CAA 

puts the burden on a petitioner to 

demonstrate that the substance it 

proposes to list satisfies all of the SNAP 

criteria. Solvay contended that EPA 

should not attempt to delist any 

substances on its own initiative. Solvay 

commented that to the extent it does, 

EPA has the burden, standing in the 

shoes of a petitioner, to demonstrate 

that it has data adequate to support the 

petition. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with 

the commenter regarding EPA’s 

authority to independently review and, 

where appropriate, change the status of 

substitutes under the SNAP program. In 

the preamble to the initial SNAP rule, 

the Agency stated that ‘‘section 612 

authorizes it to initiate changes to the 

SNAP determinations independent of 

any petitions or notifications received. 

These amendments can be based on new 

data on either additional substitutes or 

on characteristics of substitutes 

previously reviewed’’ (59 FR 13044, 

13047). Nothing in section 612(c) 

contravenes this interpretation. The 

existence of section 612(d), which 

provides a right for persons to petition 

the Agency to revise a listing, does not 

address in any manner whether EPA has 

authority to change a listing on its own. 

Furthermore, section 612(c) requires 

EPA to take action when the Agency (1) 

determines that a substitute may present 

adverse effects to human health and the 

environment, and (2) identifies an 

alternative that reduces overall risk to 

human health and the environment and 

is currently or potentially available. 

Section 612(c) does not limit such EPA 

determinations to initial review of 

substitutes. 

For petitions under section 612(d), the 

petition must ‘‘include a showing . . . 

that there are data on the substance 

adequate to support the petition.’’ The 

Agency disagrees that EPA stands in the 

shoes of a petitioner under 612(d) when 

it proposes to change the listing status 

of an alternative. Rather, EPA’s action is 

governed by section 612(c), and EPA 

considers the criteria used in reviewing 

substitutes as provided in 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7). Regardless, we note that 

we also review section 612(d) petitions 

based on the same SNAP criteria and 

thus the ‘‘data on the substance 

adequate to support the petition’’ 

necessarily are the data required for 

review under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). 

EPA has changed the listing status of 

substitutes in the past without having 

received a petition under section 612(d), 

as, for example, when we changed the 

listing status of MT–31 (64 FR 3861, Jan. 

26, 1999; 40 CFR part 82 subpart G 

appendix E) and HBFC–22B1 (67 FR 

4185, Jan. 29, 2002; 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G appendix J). 

While EPA has the right to act in the 

absence of a petition, as described 

above, EPA did receive three petitions 

filed under section 612(d) that are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42940 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

relevant to this rulemaking. Specifically, 

NRDC filed a petition on May 7, 2010. 

On February 14, 2011, EPA found that 

petition complete for MVAC in new 

passenger cars and light-duty vehicles 

and determined it was incomplete for 

other uses of HFC–134a. This rule 

responds to the aspect of that petition 

that we found complete. In addition, 

EIA filed a petition on April 26, 2012, 

and NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a 

petition on April 27, 2012. Although 

EPA found both of these petitions 

incomplete, our action in this final rule 

may be considered responsive to certain 

aspects of the petitions, given that we 

are changing the listing of certain HFCs 

used in sectors noted in those petitions 

from acceptable to unacceptable for 

most uses, and placing use conditions or 

narrowed use limits on some of the 

remaining uses. A more detailed 

discussion of the petitions can be found 

in section IV of this rule. 

7. Application of Criteria for Review of 

Alternatives 

Comment: Solvay commented that 

EPA has failed to properly apply the 

SNAP factors to a delisting situation, 

has given undue weight to GWP in its 

analysis, and has based its decision on 

comparative GWPs of various non-ODS 

options to the exclusion of all other 

factors. Solvay commented that the 

proposal was deficient in that EPA 

failed to consider many relevant codes, 

standards and regulations, including 

parallel energy efficiency regulations 

issued by the DOE; building code 

standards; fire code requirements; and 

Coast Guard regulations. Solvay also 

stated that EPA should have considered 

technical concerns like solubility, 

compatibility, and shelf stability; 

equipment limits; supply chain 

considerations; and safety concerns that 

affect many end-use products. 

Solvay further commented that in 

making a determination whether to list 

a substance as an approved substitute to 

replace an ODS, the Agency must 

conduct a comprehensive analysis of 

each alternative in each end-use, 

including considerations of the cost of 

the alternative, availability, and the 

overall practicability of effectuating a 

replacement. Solvay focused on the 

phrase ‘‘to the maximum extent 

practicable’’ in section 612(a) of the 

CAA, stating that Congress deliberately 

chose the term ‘‘practicable’’ to mandate 

an orderly transition from ODS. Solvay 

stated that the term ‘‘practicable’’ 

ordinarily includes consideration of cost 

and availability. Solvay further argued 

that EPA had acknowledged and agreed 

with this understanding of the term by 

including cost and availability in its list 

of criteria. Solvay referred to dictum in 

Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363, 1373 

(D.C. Cir. 2004) stating that ‘‘it is at least 

facially plausible to read the term 

‘available’ in section 612(c) as 

permitting consideration of ‘economic 

or practicality’ concerns.’’ 

Mexichem commented that the text of 

the proposed rule and the underlying 

docket, including the SNAP program’s 

comparative risk framework, are vague 

on how EPA reached the required 

section 612(c) conclusion that the 

alternatives reduce overall risks to 

human health and the environment, 

leaving the impression that it 

considered only GWP. Specifically, they 

state that out of the seven documents 

that may be relevant to the comparative 

risk framework analysis, only the 

‘‘Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program 

Status Change Rule’’ report refers to 

human health and the environment, 

with a focus on climate benefits, but 

that the report itself is silent on 

estimated reduction of ‘‘overall risks to 

human health.’’ Mexichem also noted 

that EPA promised to prepare a 

consolidated analysis document in the 

proposed rule, but no such document 

was available at the time the comments 

were drafted. Mexichem further stated 

that an assessment of HFC–134a and 

related alternatives is missing, and that 

such an assessment should have 

included several specific questions 

related to the following factors: 

Performance, availability, hazard, 

exposure, and cost of the alternatives. 

These questions include whether the 

other alternatives perform as well as 

HFC–134a in the specific end-use; 

whether the other alternatives will be 

available in the necessary quantities; 

whether the other alternatives present a 

better overall hazard profile; whether 

the other alternatives present a better 

overall exposure profile; whether use of 

the other alternatives involves an 

equivalent cost; and whether use of the 

other alternatives represents a costeffective mitigation of CO2 emissions in 

each end-use. 

Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. 

questioned whether the CAA authorizes 

EPA to delist non-ODS solely on the 

basis of GWP. Arkema commented that 

EPA is focusing on the potential hazard 

of GWP alone and stated that EPA is not 

evaluating HFC–134a within a 

comparative risk framework. Arkema 

stated that if the CAA were to authorize 

the SNAP program to ‘‘delist’’ 

previously approved non-ozone 

depleting substances based on climate, 

then EPA would need to develop an 

objective measure for deciding which 

substitute poses a greater risk and 

communicate that standard to the 

regulated community. Arkema claimed 

that any such measure would need to 

include methods for weighing different 

types of risks against one another (such 

as flammability versus climate) and for 

including mitigation, as the existing 

SNAP program, which did not originally 

provide for quantitative indexing of 

risks, does not convey sufficient 

information to the Agency or the 

regulated community regarding risk 

management decisions. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters’ views regarding the 

Agency’s consideration of overall risk. 

In this rule, we applied the same 

comparative risk framework that was 

established for the SNAP program in 

1994 and that has been used 

successfully for over 20 years. When we 

issued the proposal, we did not re-open 

fundamental parts of the SNAP 

program, such as the factors we evaluate 

and the manner in which we weigh 

them. Under the SNAP regulations, 

proponents of a substitute are required 

to submit a wide array of information, 

including information on ODP, GWP, 

toxicity, environmental fate and 

transport, flammability, exposure data 

and the cost and availability of the 

substitute under review (see 40 CFR 

82.178 for a full list of the information 

required with SNAP submissions). EPA 

reviews these data and applies the 

regulatory criteria adopted in 1994, 

which include, in addition to 

atmospheric effects, general population 

risks from ambient exposure to 

compounds with direct toxicity and to 

increased ground-level ozone, 

ecosystem risks, occupational risks, 

consumer risks, flammability, and cost 

and availability of the substitute under 

review (see 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)). As 

regards specific quantification of 

reductions in overall risk to human 

health and the environment, in the 1994 

rulemaking, we considered and rejected 

comments suggesting that we develop 

an index to rank all substitutes based on 

risk. In the preamble to the rule, we 

specifically noted that ‘‘a strict 

quantitative index would not allow for 

sufficient flexibility in making 

appropriate risk management decisions’’ 

(59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). Our 

subsequent experience with the SNAP 

program has given us no reason to 

revisit this approach. 

While EPA prepared a variety of 

documents in association with the 

proposed rule, the bulk of the 

comparison of human health and 

environmental impacts of alternatives 

appeared in the preamble to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42941 

100EPA also placed in the docket a document on 

exposure limits for alternatives in the foam blowing 

sector, titled, ‘‘Information on workplace exposure 

limits for foam blowing agents.’’ 

NPRM.100 For this final rule, we have 

added a technical support document to 

the docket which provides the Federal 

Register citations for information such 

as ODP, GWP, VOC status, flammability, 

and workplace exposure limits both for 

the substitutes remaining acceptable 

and for those with a changed status 

(EPA, 2015d). This information was 

discussed in the preambles to both the 

NRPM and the final rule and is 

provided in tabular format in the 

technical support document for easier 

comparison and consistency of 

presentation. 

As stated in the NPRM, the 

documentation associated with the 

proposed rule includes ‘‘market 

characterizations, analyses of costs 

associated with sector transitions, 

estimated benefits associated with the 

transition to alternatives, and potential 

small business impacts’’ (79 FR 46126). 

These documents provide information 

to the public about estimated 

environmental benefits, the affected 

markets, and potential cost impacts, as 

well as provide EPA’s screening 

analyses to determine whether this rule 

may have significant economic impacts 

or significant impacts on a substantial 

number of small businesses; they are not 

part of EPA’s comparison of human 

health and environmental effects of 

alternatives. 

Mexichem noted in its comments that 

EPA had included these documents in 

the docket for the proposed rule, but 

raised a concern about the availability of 

the consolidated analysis document 

anticipated in the NPRM. The 

consolidated analysis is included in the 

docket for the final rule, but was not 

available during the public comment 

period (ICF, 2015a). This document is a 

consolidated sector-by-sector market 

characterization for those sectors 

addressed in this action. While it 

incorporates some suggestions and 

information provided by commenters, it 

otherwise does not add new substantive 

information other than that provided in 

the individual market characterizations 

at the time of the proposed rulemaking. 

It merely consolidates the information 

for ease of reference. 

We disagree with the comments 

suggesting that EPA did not consider 

factors other than GWP. In the NPRM, 

for each end-use or sector, EPA 

provided information comparing the 

alternatives and applying the full set of 

regulatory criteria, not solely GWPs, in 

deciding whether to change the status of 

a listed substitute, consistent with 

SNAP’s past practices. As one example, 

in discussing the change in status for 

HFC–227ea in the aerosol propellant 

end-use, the Agency explained in the 

preamble that other available substitutes 

have zero ODP, are relatively low in 

toxicity, are capable of remaining below 

their respective exposure limits, and are 

expected to have negligible impact on 

ground-level ozone levels (79 FR 46126, 

46173). In each case, consistent with the 

decision criteria listed at 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7), EPA has considered 

environmental impacts, flammability, 

toxicity, and exposure. In the context of 

this review, we considered a large 

amount of information including, 

among other things: Scientific findings, 

information provided by the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 

that supports the Montreal Protocol, 

journal articles, submissions to the 

SNAP program, dockets for other EPA 

rulemakings, presentations and reports 

presented at domestic and international 

conferences, and materials from trade 

associations and professional 

organizations. References cited in the 

NPRM were listed in section IX of that 

document and the references cited in 

this final action are listed in section IX 

of this document. 

Solvay suggested a number of 

considerations they believe should have 

been included as part of EPA’s decisionmaking criteria, such as various 

standards and codes, product shelf-life, 

and equipment limits. Solvay does not 

discuss how the various considerations 

mentioned relate to the existing SNAP 

review process. In general, we took such 

considerations into account to the 

extent relevant to the criteria for review 

of a substitute or to the availability of 

other alternatives. For example, we 

considered such issues as the supply 

and characteristics of alternatives as 

well as the status of various regulations 

and codes and standards as they relate 

to the availability of the alternatives and 

thus the appropriate time for the change 

of status. EPA specifically mentioned 

building codes (id. at 46143) and energy 

efficiency and requested comment on 

‘‘the effect, if any, [the] proposal would 

have on meeting applicable DOE 

standards.’’ (id. at 46147). We also noted 

that plans for the production of an 

alternative to HFC–134a in the MVAC 

end-use ‘‘are in place to make it 

available in volumes that meet current 

and projected domestic auto industry 

demand.’’ (id. at 46141) 

We also addressed certain of these 

issues in the context of the potential 

mitigation of risks both for those 

substitutes subject to the status change 

and those that remain available. For 

example, we noted in the preamble to 

the NPRM, in the context of alternatives 

in several of the foams end-uses, that 

flammability issues would be addressed 

in the process of meeting OSHA 

regulations and fire codes (id. at 46,152, 

46,153); and in the context of the retail 

food refrigeration and vending machine 

end-uses, that exposure limits for the 

alternatives, including workplace 

exposure limits of the AIHA and from 

OSHA and NIOSH, would be met. (id. 

at 46,144). Concerning other technical 

concerns such as solubility, 

compatibility, and shelf stability, this is 

not information that the SNAP program 

has routinely requested or received, 

either for the substitutes used for 

comparison purposes or for those being 

evaluated for listing. We have 

recognized, and when warranted, made 

changes responding to such technical 

considerations in this final rule where 

commenters provided information 

relevant to the availability of 

alternatives: For example, in 

establishing the change of status date for 

stand-alone refrigeration equipment, we 

took into consideration that certain 

larger capacity commercial stand-alone 

refrigeration equipment requires charge 

sizes larger than those established in the 

use conditions for most flammable 

refrigerants. 

Similarly, Mexichem suggested that 

EPA was required to evaluate specific 

questions regarding performance, 

availability, hazard, exposure, and cost. 

Again, this ignores the established 

criteria that EPA uses in determining 

whether a substitute is acceptable or 

unacceptable in a specified end-use. In 

the NPRM, in determining whether 

other substitutes were available that 

posed lower risk than those for which 

we proposed to change the status, EPA 

evaluated the ozone-depletion, climate, 

local air quality, toxicity and 

flammability risks of the substitutes 

undergoing a change of status as well as 

of other alternatives, thereby addressing 

hazard and exposure concerns. We note 

that the statute refers to overall risk to 

human health and the environment, and 

does not require that the substitutes be 

better in terms of each potential human 

health and environmental concern. EPA 

does not typically compare the 

performance or efficacy of substitutes 

except in considering whether a 

substitute is technically feasible (see 

definition of ‘‘potentially available’’ at 

40 CFR 82.172). In other words, it is not 

necessary for EPA to evaluate whether 

other alternatives perform as well as 

HFC–134a (or other HFCs) in the 

specific end-use in order to determine 

that overall risks to human health and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42942 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the environment would be reduced 

through use of those alternatives. 

We have considered whether other 

alternatives will be available in 

sufficient quantities as part of our 

analysis of the availability of 

alternatives. As discussed in the NPRM, 

we set dates for the proposed status 

changes that reflect when there will be 

a sufficient supply of the alternatives. 

(id. at 46,141) In some instances, we 

have revised those dates in this final 

action after taking into account 

information on supply of alternatives 

submitted by commenters. 

One of the regulatory criteria for 

review of a substitute is the ‘‘cost and 

availability of the substitute’’ (59 FR 

13044, Mar. 18, 1994; 40 CFR 

82.180(7)(vii)). The consideration of cost 

under this criterion is limited to the cost 

of the substitute under review; it is 

distinct from consideration of costs 

associated with the use of other 

alternatives to which the substitute is 

being compared. See Honeywell, 374 

F.3d at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in 

part and dissenting in part) (‘‘While the 

SNAP regulations make the ‘cost and 

availability of the substitute’ an element 

of acceptability . . . that concern is 

limited to whether EPA ‘has . . . reason 

to prohibit its use,’ not to whether 

cleaner alternatives for the substance are 

already ‘currently or potentially 

available’. . . . Consideration of 

transition costs is thus precluded by the 

SNAP regulations as currently written, 

irrespective of whether it might be 

permitted under CAA § 612(c). . . .’’) 

Contrary to Solvay’s contention, 

including the cost of the substitute in 

the list of review criteria does not 

amount to an acknowledgment that the 

term ‘‘practicable’’ as used in section 

612(a) necessarily involves 

consideration of the costs associated 

with using other alternatives. EPA has 

not determined whether the term 

‘‘practicable,’’ the term ‘‘available,’’ or 

other terms in section 612 provide 

discretion to consider such costs. 

Similarly, our existing regulations do 

not direct us to consider whether use of 

the other alternatives involves an 

equivalent cost to that of HFC–134a or 

a cost-effective mitigation of CO2

emissions. We are not addressing in this 

rulemaking whether to revise the 

regulatory criteria to include an 

expanded role for the consideration of 

costs in SNAP listing decisions. We 

have simply applied the existing 

regulatory criteria in determining 

whether to change the listing status of 

the substitutes addressed in this action. 

Thus, we have not considered the costs 

of transition to other alternatives. 

Several commenters suggested or 

implied that EPA’s action was based 

‘‘excessively’’ or solely on GWP. As 

discussed above, we performed a full 

comparative risk analysis for each of the 

substitutes and for each end-use for 

which we are changing the status. 

However, as noted in the preamble to 

the NPRM, EPA issued this proposal in 

response to the CAP. As such, in 

determining which substitutes and enduses to address in the proposed rule, we 

evaluated the existing listing decisions 

in the eight sectors covered by the 

SNAP program. In three of the sectors, 

we identified a subset of substitutes that 

have a high GWP relative to other listed 

alternatives and for which we also had 

reason to believe other alternatives were 

‘‘available’’ for the end-use. For those 

substitutes included in the proposed 

rule on the basis of having a relatively 

higher GWP, in most cases, EPA did not 

find significant potential differences in 

risk with respect to the other criteria, 

with the exceptions of flammability and 

local air quality impacts. However, 

where flammability risk was a potential 

concern, we concluded that such risk is 

mitigated by the existing use conditions 

or through other existing regulations 

(e.g., OSHA). In the case of spray foam, 

we proposed to change the status of 

fewer HFCs than in other foam blowing 

end-uses in consideration of greater 

flammability risks in that end-use. 

Regarding VOC emissions and potential 

impacts on local air quality, for the 

aerosol propellant end-use, we did not 

propose to change the status of HFC– 

152a, a VOC-exempt aerosol propellant. 

B. Cost and Economic Impacts of 

Proposed Status Changes 

EPA received a number of comments 

on the cost and economic impacts of the 

proposed rule. Some of these comments 

are summarized in the response to 

comments sections for the end-uses 

addressed in this final rule. We 

summarize and respond to the more 

general cost comments below. 

1. Costs of Proposed Rule 

Comment: EPA received several 

comments indicating that the 

commenters believe EPA should 

provide more time in order to avoid 

undue burden on the U.S. economy. 

NAFEM comments that if this rule is 

finalized as proposed, the change from 

using R–404A will be very costly. 

NAFEM stated that compliance cost 

estimates range from $500,000 to several 

million dollars depending on the 

number and variety of custom products 

the manufacturer offers. They further 

comment that testing costs are routinely 

several hundred thousand dollars and 

increase with the variety and level of 

customization. NAFEM comments that 

in addition, manufacturers will lose 

revenues waiting for the limited number 

of testing facilities able to accommodate 

the industry’s products. The Alliance 

for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the 

Alliance) requests that greater weight be 

given to economic considerations where 

the Agency is determining dates for 

availability of new alternatives, or 

changing the listing status, which unlike 

SNAP listing, may require businesses to 

alter practices and business models. The 

Alliance also requests that these 

economic considerations also be 

undertaken cognizant of competing 

regulatory initiatives. The Alliance also 

comments that the SNAP change of 

status process should be used sparingly, 

since its economic implications should 

require a higher scrutiny in considering 

transition dates and market assumptions 

than is needed for the SNAP listing 

approval process. DuPont comments 

that it is important to reduce emissions 

in a way that does not slow down global 

trade, and to achieve emissions 

reductions in a cost-effective manner. 

Arkema comments that no SNAP rule 

should impose unreasonable burdens on 

the U.S. economy. Arkema believes that 

EPA must allow more time for 

transitions to avoid that outcome. 

Mexichem believes EPA failed to take 

into account the economic implications 

of the proposed rule. 

Response: As discussed more fully in 

section VII.A.7, under the SNAP criteria 

for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), the 

only cost information that EPA 

considers as part of its SNAP review of 

substitutes is the cost of the substitute 

under review. The transition timelines 

in this final rule are based on 

information concerning the availability 

of alternatives. 

Comment: Arkema commented that 

EPA underestimated the costs of the 

NPRM. Arkema believes EPA’s cost 

estimates are unduly optimistic given 

all that must be done to redesign 

equipment. Arkema further commented 

on three areas of economic analysis that 

they state need to be addressed. First, 

Arkema stated that EPA does not 

include the ‘‘wasted costs’’ incurred by 

those manufacturers that have actually 

changed designs of their equipment to 

meet DOE standards, based on the 

continued availability of existing SNAP 

substitutes, but that now may need to 

change their designs again. Second, 

Arkema suggested that EPA should 

account for ‘‘economic effects’’ on U.S. 

plants that produce HFC–134a and the 

other HFCs and HFC blends whose 

listing the Agency proposed to change. 

Third, Arkema suggested that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42943 

economic analyses should disclose how 

EPA expects prices and availability to 

change once it eliminates competing 

products, including stimulation of 

short-term demand for the HFCs and 

HFC blends whose listing the Agency 

proposed to change, longer term 

increases in prices for the HFCs and 

HFC blends, and increased demand for 

next-generation fluorinated products. 

Solvay commented that given the 

cumulative regulatory burden, EPA has 

dramatically underestimated the costs of 

the NPRM. As an example, Solvay 

pointed to the DOE energy conservation 

standards. 

Response: Although EPA did not 

consider the costs of transitioning to 

other alternatives in making the listing 

decisions in this rulemaking, we did 

prepare a cost analysis and a small 

business impacts analysis for this rule 

for businesses that are directly 

regulated. 

We do not typically analyze 

cumulative regulatory burden in our 

cost analyses. Nonetheless, EPA notes 

that to the extent that affected entities 

recently incurred costs to comply with 

DOE rulemakings, the change of status 

dates in the final rule for the foam 

blowing sector and for some of the 

refrigeration end-uses (e.g., vending 

machines) may reduce the potential for 

additional costs due to complying with 

both rules compared to the change of 

status dates in the NPRM, since 

equipment manufacturers should better 

be able to coordinate DOE’s 

requirements and these SNAP 

requirements. For example, the change 

of status date for rigid PU appliance 

foam is January 1, 2020, while based on 

the 2014 compliance date of the most 

recent DOE standards, the compliance 

date for any revised energy conservation 

standard for household refrigerators and 

freezers would be no earlier than 2020. 

For vending machines, the final change 

of status date is January 1, 2019, which 

will likely coincide with compliance 

requirements for any new or amended 

DOE refrigerated beverage vending 

machine standards, as compliance with 

such standards would be required three 

years after the publication of a final 

rule. Material in the docket for that 

action indicate DOE’s plans for a final 

rule with a compliance date three years 

later (see EERE–2013–BT–STD–0022). 

Second, EPA has analyzed the costs of 

users that are directly regulated and has 

not analyzed the impacts on chemical 

producers, which are indirectly affected 

by the regulation. The commenters did 

not provide specific cost or supply 

information regarding redesigning 

equipment or specific information on 

operating costs for chemical plants that 

would have allowed us to analyze the 

impacts as requested by Arkema. We 

disagree with Arkema that it is 

necessary or appropriate to analyze the 

indirect impacts upon chemical plants 

and producers. Such analysis would be 

highly speculative about the degree of 

cost pass-through from producers to 

consumers of these chemicals. The total 

cost estimates would be unchanged; 

rather such an analysis would relate to 

transfers between producers of the 

substitutes undergoing a change of 

status, producers of the acceptable 

alternatives for the same uses, and 

consumers of these products rather than 

losses to the economy or to a market 

sector as a whole. We note that the 

transition affecting the majority of HFC– 

134a production, the transition away 

from HFC–134a in MVAC, is already 

occurring because of other regulations, 

and therefore changes to production and 

cost of HFC–134a cannot easily be 

attributed to this action. 

EPA recognizes that transitioning to 

other alternatives is likely to require 

capital costs and investments in 

research, updated equipment, and their 

related financial impacts. Many 

chemical producers have either 

submitted SNAP notifications or 

expressed interest in submitting SNAP 

notifications concerning new molecules 

and blends of existing molecules. EPA 

agrees with Arkema that this rule is 

likely to stimulate demand in nextgeneration alternatives further. 

EPA also notes that, for example, 

HFC–134a likely will be a component of 

many low-GWP blends that are being 

developed specifically to replace HFC– 

134a. EPA listed as acceptable one of 

those blends, R–450A, on October 21, 

2014 at 79 FR 62863. The Agency is 

aware of additional blends that multiple 

chemical producers are developing. As 

noted throughout this document, the 

range of alternatives includes new 

molecules and existing compounds, 

encompassing fluorinated, nonfluorinated and in some cases not-inkind alternatives. 

Third, we question Arkema’s 

assumption that competition will 

decrease and thus cost for low-GWP 

alternatives will rise. For each of the 

status changes in this final action, more 

than one other alternative is currently 

listed as acceptable or acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, for the 

relevant end-use. Moreover, we expect 

new SNAP submissions that would 

result in the introduction of further 

alternatives to increase, rather than 

reduce, competition. Further, because 

this rule does not regulate production of 

individual chemicals directly and 

allows servicing of existing refrigeration 

and AC equipment with the refrigerants 

for which they are designed, we expect 

there will continue to be a market for 

HFC–134a and other HFC refrigerants 

for years to come. 

In those cases where commenters 

provided specific, detailed cost 

information, we used that information 

to revise the cost assumptions in our 

updated cost analysis for this final rule. 

For additional information on economic 

analysis conducted for this rule, see the 

supporting document ‘‘Revised Cost 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 

Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives’’ (ICF, 2015c). 

Comment: NRDC and IGSD 

commented that the rule is important 

because it provides a needed signal to 

various industrial sectors that as safer 

alternatives are brought to market, 

substitutes with high GWPs will be 

removed from the SNAP list. NRDC and 

IGSD commented that this provides 

American companies with an 

opportunity to become industry leaders 

as the global market moves away from 

high-GWP substances, by developing 

new chemicals and processes to 

transition the refrigeration, cooling, 

aerosol and foams markets as quickly as 

possible. NRDC further commented that 

this rule will establish U.S. industry as 

a leader in safer chemicals, helping pave 

the way for global action under the 

Montreal Protocol. NRDC noted that 

when EPA previously proposed phasing 

down CFCs and ODS, there were 

warnings about dire impacts on industry 

that did not come to pass, and NRDC 

expects this will be true for this rule as 

well. NRDC commented that 25 years of 

experience with the Montreal Protocol 

and the CAA has shown us that 

transitioning to safer chemicals works 

smoothly. 

Response: EPA appreciates this 

comment and agrees that there are many 

innovative U.S. companies bringing new 

low-GWP, energy-efficient products to 

market. 

2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small 

Business Impacts Screening Analysis 

Comment: EPA received a number of 

comments indicating that small 

businesses bear a disproportionate share 

of the regulatory burden and that the 

NPRM represents a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ NAFEM comments 

that EPA must conduct a complete 

analysis of the impacts on small entities 

before any final regulation can be 

promulgated. NAFEM comments that 

EPA’s analysis is too narrow, is 

incomplete, and that its conclusions are 

unsupported. NAFEM further comments 

that the NPRM disproportionately 

affects small entities. NAFEM comments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42944 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

that the NPRM represents a major rule 

and will have a $100 million effect on 

the economy and a major impact on the 

commercial refrigeration industry and 

its consumers. NAFEM commented that 

the docket lacks a robust industry 

analysis of the effects on small business 

manufacturers and customers, or 

reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory 

Flexibility Act conclusions. NAFEM 

recommends that EPA initiate a Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) Small Entity 

Representative review panel to help 

inform final rulemaking, as required by 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Solvay 

also commented that EPA should 

convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel under the SBREFA. 

Response: E.O. 12866 states that rules 

that have an impact on the economy of 

$100 million per year qualify as 

significant regulatory actions. EPA 

disagrees that this rule would have an 

impact on the economy of $100 million 

more per year. We performed an 

analysis of the costs of the proposed 

rule on businesses and estimated the 

total annualized upfront compliance 

costs to range from $8.9 million to $41.6 

million; total annual savings are 

estimated to be about $25.1 million 

(ICF, 2014g). This cost analysis did not 

evaluate the share of costs likely to be 

borne by consumers, since it is not clear 

what proportion of cost impacts may be 

carried on to consumers, and further, 

such economic analyses typically look 

at costs to the regulated community 

rather than indirect impacts on 

consumers. We updated this analysis 

based upon the regulatory options and 

change of status dates in the final rule, 

and using cost information provided by 

commenters. The changes in the final 

rule—especially with respect to 

compliance dates—reduce the cost 

impacts on small businesses, while the 

updated cost information resulted in 

higher cost estimates. In this updated 

analysis, we estimated the total 

annualized upfront compliance costs to 

range from $28.0 million to $50.6 

million, using a 7% discount rate, and 

from $19.5 million to $37.8 million, 

using a 3% discount rate. Total annual 

savings are estimated to be about $19.3 

million (ICF, 2015c). In either case, this 

is well below the $100 million per year 

threshold to consider this an 

economically significant rule on 

economic grounds. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

that the ‘‘docket lacks a robust industry 

analysis on the effects on small business 

manufacturers and customers, or 

reasonable support for EPA’s Regulatory 

Flexibility Act conclusions.’’ The 

Agency’s screening analysis at proposal 

stage is included in the docket (ICF, 

2014f). The commenters do not point to 

any specific aspect of that analysis that 

they believe are deficient. A Small 

Business Advocacy Panel is convened 

when a proposed rulemaking is 

expected to have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

or ‘‘SISNOSE.’’ We have updated our 

small business impacts screening 

analysis using the change of status 

decisions and dates in the final rule, 

adding boat manufacturers as affected 

entities, and using detailed cost 

information provided by commenters 

(ICF, 2015b). EPA’s preliminary and 

final screening analyses concluded that 

this rulemaking would not pose a 

SISNOSE. In the analyses, EPA 

recognized that some small businesses 

may experience significant costs, but 

concluded that the number of small 

businesses that would experience 

significant costs was not substantial. 

Both the screening analysis for 

purposes of determining whether there 

was a SISNOSE and the analysis to 

determine whether the rule was 

significant based upon economic 

grounds were conducted based on the 

best market and cost information 

available to the Agency. Where 

commenters provided specific market or 

cost information, the Agency used that 

information to update these analyses. 

The updated analyses came to the same 

conclusions: That the final rule would 

not pose a SISNOSE and that it is not 

an economically significant rule (ICF, 

2015b,c). 

C. Environmental Effects of Proposed 

Status Changes 

EPA received submissions from 42 

commenters related to the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

status changes. Additionally, EPA 

received 7,022 mass mailing letters 

commenting on the importance of 

transitioning away from HFCs to more 

climate-friendly alternatives. Ten 

commenters referred to the CAP. 

1. General Comments 

Comment: EPA received over 7,000 

substantially identical comments 

regarding the climate impacts of HFCs 

and supporting action to address the 

growth in usage of these potent 

greenhouse gases. The commenters also 

stated that that the rest of the world, 

including Europe and Japan, is taking 

action to reduce HFC emissions, so the 

United States should also transition 

away from HFCs to protect the planet 

from the catastrophic impacts of climate 

change. They also stated that it is of the 

utmost importance to limit ‘‘superpotent’’ greenhouse gases from use in 

refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosols 

and foams and substitute them with 

safer, more climate-friendly alternatives. 

They also noted that some HFCs remain 

in the atmosphere for decades or even 

centuries after they are released, so that 

they have a strong cumulative effect. 

NRDC stated that if EPA were only 

considering human health risks, HFCs 

should be banned immediately given 

the climate risks. NRDC commented that 

we know these chemicals are extremely 

potent agents of climate change, and we 

know that continuing to use them only 

exacerbates the climate problem. EIA 

requested that EPA continue to remove 

high GWP HFCs from the lists of 

acceptable substitutes, given that HFC 

emissions are set to double by 2020 and 

triple by 2030, and given that this rule 

has the potential to reduce 42 

MMTCO2eq by 2020. EIA urged EPA to 

address all sectors covered in the SNAP 

program, given the needs of climate and 

the existence of climate-friendly 

alternatives. DuPont commented that 

they acknowledge the environmental 

need to avoid future growth in GHG 

emissions, and have thus developed 

low-GWP, energy efficient products. 

Response: The Agency appreciates the 

support of actions to list change the 

status of certain HFCs. Other actions 

urged by the commenters are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

2. EPA’s Benefits Analysis 

Comment: EPA received a number of 

comments regarding the importance, 

significance, and magnitude of the 

environmental benefits of avoided HFC 

emissions that would result based on 

the proposed rule. 

CARB comments the current 

regulations and the SNAP proposal meet 

only half of the 80% reduction 

necessary for the HFC sector if 

California is to meet its overall GHG 

reduction goal contained in California 

Executive Order (EO) S–3–05 (2005). 

Therefore, CARB believes additional 

HFC reductions are required to reduce 

this fastest-growing source of GHGs. 

NRDC and IGSD comment that even 

though HFCs may currently make up a 

small piece of global climate emissions, 

their projected rapid growth 

underscores the urgent need to replace 

these chemicals with lower-GWP 

alternatives. Further, NRDC and IGSD 

comment that without stringent rules in 

place, HFC emissions increases could 

counteract the progress EPA is striving 

to make in other sectors to reduce 

carbon pollution. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for reducing GHG emissions, 

and appreciates the estimates of the 

benefits in terms of MMTCO2eq that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42945 

101Available online at www.epa.gov/

climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport/

2014.html. 

commenters provide. CARB’s comment 

concerning meeting GHG reduction 

goals in a California EO are beyond the 

scope of this rule; we may consider 

additional status changes in a future 

rule. We agree with NRDC and IGSD 

that HFC emissions are growing rapidly 

and that it is timely to act now to 

encourage use of lower-GWP 

alternatives and ensure continuing 

progress. The Agency notes that both 

EPA’s estimates cited in the NPRM and 

the estimates the commenters provide 

are based on the provisions of the 

proposed rule, and that the benefits 

from this final rule differ. For further 

information, see EPA, 2014 and EPA, 

2015b. 

Comment: Arkema comments that at 

this time, it is not possible to provide a 

more detailed critique of the Vintaging 

Model’s assumptions and the levels of 

sector emissions given the lack of 

meaningful information in the docket. 

Arkema comments that the docket does 

not provide all the model inputs, nor 

does EPA disclose the specific emission 

factors that it used to derive its 

estimates, how recent those estimates 

are, and how they are expected to 

change over time. Arkema comments 

that EPA’s benefits analysis nowhere 

details the extent of the uncertainties in 

its emissions estimates, even though the 

record elsewhere acknowledges that 

such emissions estimates may be 

unreliable. 

Response: As an initial matter, EPA 

did not rely on the Vintaging Model in 

reaching decisions about whether other 

alternatives present lower overall risk. 

Nor did EPA otherwise rely on the 

benefits analysis that accompanied the 

proposed rule. We estimated emissions 

reductions resulting from this 

rulemaking in order to provide 

information to the public. Consistent 

with section 612(c) of the CAA, EPA 

relied on the criteria for review 

specified in the SNAP regulations at 40 

CFR 82.180(a)(7) in determining 

whether the substitutes for which we 

proposed to change the status presented 

greater risk to human health and the 

environment than other available 

alternatives. 

As part of the process for listing 

alternatives, EPA evaluates information 

concerning a substitute according to the 

criteria in EPA’s regulations at 

82.180(a)(7) (e.g., atmospheric effects, 

ecosystem risks, occupational and 

consumer risks, availability) in 

comparison with other available 

substitutes for the same end-uses. At the 

time of review, we prepare a risk screen 

and place it in the relevant public 

docket for our listing decisions. It is rare 

for risk screens to include information 

from the Vintaging Model, although 

such information may be used in some 

cases to estimate emissions (e.g., VOC 

emissions from an end-use where the 

submitter has provided insufficient 

information). The preambles to this final 

rule and the NPRM include information 

summarizing the comparisons to other 

alternatives. In addition, we also have 

docketed a document which provides 

the Federal Register citations for the 

information on the health and 

environmental characteristics of various 

alternatives in the end-uses covered in 

this final rule (EPA, 2015d). 

See the next response for further 

information about where one can find 

information on the modeling 

assumptions and methodology. 

Comment: Arkema commented that in 

order to calculate HFC sector emission 

savings, the Vintaging Model needs to 

be revised since it is over-estimating 

chemical demand. Arkema also 

commented that the basis and 

methodology for the Vintaging Model’s 

emissions estimates are unclear, but a 

comparison to publicly available 

information should have raised red flags 

because a steady growth rate of HFC 

emissions in the U.S. is extremely 

unlikely for at least three of the four 

covered sectors (i.e., MVAC, aerosols, 

and foams). For MVAC, Arkema 

comments that refrigerant charge sizes 

have been dropping, and new cars will 

be transitioning to low-GWP alternatives 

over time. Arkema notes that for 

aerosols, a significant portion of the 

aerosol product manufacturing industry 

has already transitioned out of the HFCs 

proposed for regulation. In addition, 

Arkema points out that UNEP’s 2014 

TEAP report shows that hydrocarbon 

technologies already dominate the foam 

sector. 

Response: EPA’s Vintaging Model has 

been explained annually in the 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and 

Sinks 101 report and other places. For 

example, the 2015 annual Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks report, EPA Report 430–R–15–004 

(EPA, 2015c), covers emissions, 

including emissions of HFCs used as 

ODS alternatives, for the years 1990 

through 2013 and provides in detail the 

basis and methodologies used. The 

commenter is misinformed with respect 

to the assumptions used in the model. 

Specifically, the model does assume 

that MVAC refrigerant charge sizes have 

dropped over time, and it utilizes 

detailed sector information to calculate 

such changes. In addition, it does 

assume that a significant portion of the 

aerosol product manufacturing industry 

has transitioned out of HFCs. Although 

the cited 2014 TEAP report—which the 

commenter states indicates hydrocarbon 

technologies dominate the foam sector— 

applies globally rather than specifically 

to the United States, EPA notes that its 

Vintaging Model does specifically 

assume that significant transition in the 

foam industry to non-ozone-depleting, 

low-GWP substances, including 

hydrocarbons, has occurred. 

Comment: Arkema comments that as 

far as they are aware, EPA has never 

submitted its Vintaging Model for 

external peer review. Arkema comments 

that the Vintaging Model qualifies under 

the Agency’s Peer Review Handbook as 

‘‘influential scientific information’’ for 

which external peer review is 

warranted. Arkema believes that the 

underlying data has been kept a secret. 

Arkema comments that EPA’s NPRM is 

not consistent with Administrator 

McCarthy’s three pillars of EPA’s 

scientific conclusions: Transparency, 

rigorous peer review, and robust, 

meaningful public comment. Arkema 

comments that EPA cannot obtain 

robust, meaningful comments if the 

Vintaging Model is not subject to peer 

review and if underlying data is kept 

secret. 

Response: As explained above, EPA 

used its Vintaging Model to provide 

information to the public, but does not 

rely on that information to support 

today’s rule. Thus, the issue of whether 

the Vintaging Model should be subject 

to a peer review process is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking action. 

3. Energy Efficiency 

Comment: EPA received a number of 

comments regarding energy efficiency 

and LCCP of refrigeration equipment. 

NAFEM commented that the life-cycle 

climate performances of manufacturers 

show that only about 10% of the 

environmental impact is due to a 

combination of refrigerant leak, charge 

amount and GWP of the refrigerant; the 

rest relates to energy efficiency. NAFEM 

asserted that the proposed SNAP rule 

does not account for nor can EPA claim 

any significant environmental benefits 

to offset significant costs. The Alliance 

noted that given the important energy 

efficiency consequences of this 

proposed rule, it is unclear how this 

action will meet the statutory standard 

of no greater risk to human health and 

the environment. The Alliance 

commented that by taking previously 

acceptable substitutes off the market, 

these proposals could result in less 

efficiency in the near term. The Alliance 

further comments as EPA evaluates the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42946 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

102 If a manufacturer believes that its design is 

subjected to undue hardship by DOE’s regulations, 

the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of 

Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s 

authority under section 504 of the DOE 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented 

at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 

authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis 

if it determines that a manufacturer has 

demonstrated that meeting the standard would 

cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 

burdens. 

timing of transitions in various end-use 

segments, it is important that life cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions, including 

those associated with energy use, are 

given proper consideration as part of 

ensuring the alternative presents ‘‘no 

greater risk to human health and the 

environment.’’ 

Response: EPA provided estimates of 

the climate benefits associated with the 

NPRM, and we have also estimated the 

climate benefits associated with this 

final rule (EPA, 2014; EPA, 2015b). 

These estimates are based on avoided 

direct HFC emissions. They are distinct 

from our evaluation of whether other 

alternatives are currently or potentially 

available that present less overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

EPA does not have a practice in the 

SNAP program of including indirect 

climate impacts or energy efficiency in 

the overall risk analysis. We do consider 

issues such as technical needs for 

energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE 

standards) in determining whether 

alternatives are ‘‘available.’’ Elsewhere 

in this final action, EPA addressed and 

responded to comments concerning 

energy efficiency (see in particular 

sections V.C.3.c, V.C.4.c, V.C.7 and 

V.D.3.c). EPA notes that the refrigerant 

is only one of many factors affecting 

energy efficiency. Moreover, even as 

refrigerant transitions have taken place 

over past decades, we have seen 

improved energy efficiency. This is 

often due to equipment redesigns and 

technology advancements that include 

factors besides the choice of refrigerant. 

EPA notes that a number of models are 

already commercially available that do 

not use the refrigerants subject to a 

change of status in this final rule and 

also meet or exceed the relevant energy 

conservation standards and thus reduce 

both direct and indirect climate 

impacts. 

4. The Climate Action Plan 

Comment: EPA received six 

comments commending the EPA for 

quickly proposing a rule to achieve the 

goals in the President’s CAP. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support from this wide variety of 

interested stakeholders on addressing 

the goals in the President’s CAP. 

Comment: EPA received two 

comments questioning whether the 

President’s CAP provides authority to 

regulate HFCs. 

Response: Section 612 of the CAA, 

not the CAP, provides the authority for 

this action. CAA section 612(c) requires 

EPA to list a substitute as unacceptable 

if other available alternatives pose lower 

risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Comment: Two comments stated that 

EPA’s response to the President’s CAP 

in the NPRM did not consider full 

ramifications of the challenges to 

industry. 

Response: The NPRM proposed 

changes to listings based on the 

information the Agency had at the time 

of the proposal. We requested comments 

to further our understanding of any 

potential challenges relating to technical 

feasibility or supply. We considered that 

additional information as we developed 

the final rule. 

D. Potential Exemptions 

Comment: EIA commented on 

potential exemptions, specifically the 

need for a mechanism to petition for an 

essential use exemption or for more 

time with a valid basis. The commenter 

recognized that the potential for the 

misuse of such a mechanism could 

overwhelm the resources of the EPA 

available for this transition. As a result, 

EIA recommended that EPA grant no 

blanket exemptions or delays due to the 

needs of one or a few sectors but that 

EPA establish an exemption mechanism 

with a penalty clause to avoid misuse. 

Response: The SNAP regulations do 

not currently contain an across-theboard mechanism for petitioning for an 

exemption, and EPA did not propose 

such a mechanism in the NPRM. To 

make such a change in our regulations, 

we would first need to provide an 

opportunity for public comments. In 

some instances in the final rule EPA has 

changed a listing to acceptable, subject 

to narrowed use limits. The narrowed 

use limits identify a narrow part of the 

end-use in which an end user could use 

an otherwise unacceptable substitute if 

they can support that no other 

acceptable substitutes are available for 

their specific application. 

E. Interactions With Other Rules 

Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, 

AHRI, and a number of other 

commenters in the commercial 

refrigeration and home appliance 

industries expressed concern about the 

feasibility of using other alternatives to 

meet DOE energy conservation 

standards. AHRI and Coca-Cola stated 

that DOE’s federal minimum energy 

conservation standards are based on 

refrigerants and foam blowing agents 

that EPA is now proposing to list as 

unacceptable. NAFEM comments that 

manufacturers are now finding that 

developing a product to meet both the 

energy conservation standards and also 

utilizes acceptable alternative 

refrigerants and blowing agents is 

daunting if not impossible. Commenters 

pointed out that they have redesigned 

products to meet DOE energy 

conservation standards due to take 

effect in 2017. See section V.C.1.b for a 

discussion of DOE energy conservation 

standards that apply to the equipment 

affected by this rule. 

Response: Given that today’s rule 

contains later deadlines than proposed, 

as well as a phased-in approach with 

different status change dates for 

different kinds of equipment as 

suggested by many commenters, this 

should address commenters’ concern 

about meeting both sets of 

requirements.102 EPA continues to 

coordinate with DOE as EPA reviews 

alternative refrigerants and foam 

blowing agents, DOE tests energy 

efficiency of certain alternative 

refrigerants, and the two agencies 

discuss each other’s rulemakings in 

development. EPA sees the redesign of 

products as an integral part of business 

operations, and believes redesigning 

equipment to use refrigerants that pose 

a lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment is in many ways 

similar to past redesigns. We believe 

that manufacturers can incorporate 

lower-GWP refrigerants in stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment and 

remote condensing units while 

designing for DOE energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and for walk-in coolers and 

freezers, both of which have compliance 

dates in 2017, and can incorporate 

lower-GWP foam blowing agents while 

designing for DOE standards for 

household refrigerators/freezers. Based 

on the 2014 compliance date of the most 

recent DOE standards for residential 

refrigerators and freezers, the 

compliance date for any revised energy 

conservation standard for household 

refrigerators and freezers would be no 

earlier than 2020. As discussed in the 

previous and following responses and in 

sections V.C.7 and V.D.3.c) as well as 

other sections of this preamble, there are 

both refrigerants and foam blowing 

agents with lower GWPs available that 

allow for improved energy efficiency 

compared to the substitutes we are 

finding unacceptable in this rule. EPA 

anticipates that innovative companies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42947 

will seize this opportunity to develop 

more efficient and profitable designs. 

Comment: A number of manufacturers 

of commercial refrigeration products 

commented on the relative energy 

efficiency of alternative refrigerants, 

compared to the refrigerants proposed to 

be unacceptable. Lennox commented 

that the substitution of R–407 family 

refrigerants in place of R–404A and R– 

507A will negatively affect the 

efficiency performance of refrigeration 

equipment for walk-in coolers and 

freezers. Structural Concepts stated that 

switching from R–404A to R–744, and 

consequently switching to thicker 

piping and new compressors, would 

increase energy usage overall by 45%, 

which would cause the unit to exceed 

the allowable energy level determined 

by the DOE. AMS commented that after 

studying the suitability of the acceptable 

(R–744) and proposed acceptable (R– 

290, R–600a and R–441A) alternatives 

extensively, it concluded that only R– 

290 will allow it to meet DOE energy 

conservation mandates. NAMA stated 

that because of DOE requirements, CO2’s 

use would be limited to indoor selfcontained units, limiting locations of 

refrigerated vending machines, reducing 

revenues for the entire supply chain and 

reducing consumer choice. Information 

in the Agency’s possession describes a 

manufacturer’s testing of the energy 

efficiency of condensing units with R– 

404A compared to R–407A, finding that 

the energy efficiency was typically 

higher with R–407A in mediumtemperature equipment but was 

typically lower with R–407A in lowtemperature equipment (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–1098–0184). Structural 

Concepts comments that R–744 is not 

flammable, but it is less energy efficient 

than the acceptable, flammable 

refrigerant propane, and to meet the 

EPA proposed regulation would likely 

mean they fail to meet DOE regulations 

or go out of business trying to meet 

them. 

Response: EPA expects that no single 

refrigerant will improve energy 

efficiency compared to the unacceptable 

refrigerants in every type of equipment 

or in every situation. For example, the 

information regarding a manufacturer’s 

test results indicates that R–407A may 

provide improved energy efficiency 

compared to R–404A for mediumtemperature refrigeration equipment 

(refrigerators), but not necessarily for 

low-temperature refrigeration 

equipment (freezers); this information 

indicates that Lenox’s comment about 

lower energy efficiency of R–407A 

compared to R–404A or R–507A may be 

correct for low-temperature equipment 

and incorrect for medium-temperature 

equipment. We agree with the 

commenters who noted that R–744 may 

be more energy efficient in locations 

with lower ambient temperatures and 

thus may be more suitable for use 

indoors than outdoors. R–290 may 

provide better energy efficiency than 

HFC refrigerants in many situations, but 

not necessarily all, and not all end users 

will want to use a flammable refrigerant. 

In response to the comment from 

Structural Concepts expressing concern 

about the ability to meeting energy 

conservation standards using CO2 and 

the cost of using propane, we note that 

there are additional refrigerant choices 

available for stand-alone refrigeration 

equipment and vending machines 

besides CO2 and hydrocarbon 

refrigerants, such as the nonflammable 

refrigerants R–448A, R–449A, R–450A 

and R–513A. As discussed in section 

V.C.7, these blends may show improved 

energy efficiency over HFC–134a and R– 

404A. In addition, design and operation 

of refrigeration equipment affects energy 

efficiency and not just the refrigerant 

used. Given the variety of currently or 

potentially available alternatives, EPA 

believes it is unlikely that 

manufacturers will have to use 

refrigerants that will result in reduced 

energy efficiency compared to the 

refrigerants being listed as unacceptable 

or otherwise restricted in this final rule, 

and we expect that manufacturers will 

be able to meet DOE energy 

conservation standards with the 

remaining available alternatives. 

Comment: Some manufacturers of 

commercial refrigeration products 

commented on how design changes 

needed to accommodate alternative 

refrigerants may negatively affect energy 

efficiency. Parker Hannifin stated that 

most of the alternatives result in higher 

discharge temperatures and that some of 

the discharge temperature control 

methods employed negatively affect 

system efficiency. Nor-Lake and 

Structural Concepts indicated that they 

expected to need dual compressor 

systems, and stated that the increased 

energy usage of the dual system may 

outweigh the environmental gains of 

using the alternate lower-GWP 

refrigerant. 

Response: EPA agrees that some 

design changes could have negative 

impacts on energy efficiency if they 

were done without broader 

considerations for the overall 

performance of the appliance. As stated 

elsewhere, many models that comply 

with DOE energy conservation 

standards are already commercially 

available that do not use the refrigerants 

subject to a change of status in this final 

rule. We agree with Nor-Lake and 

Structural Concepts that dual 

compressor systems are more likely 

needed for larger equipment, 

particularly larger equipment using 

hydrocarbon refrigerants which have 

use limits restricting the refrigerant 

charge in a single refrigeration circuit. 

Recent listings of additional 

nonflammable refrigerants (e.g., R– 

450A) allow for additional options that 

would not require dual compressors. In 

response to Parker Hannifin’s comment 

about discharge temperatures, we note 

that producers of some alternative 

refrigerant blends under review by the 

SNAP program claim that these new 

blends have operating properties similar 

to those of HFC refrigerants, such as 

similar operating pressures and 

discharge temperatures. 

Given the variety of currently or 

potentially available alternatives, EPA 

believes it is unlikely that 

manufacturers will have to use 

refrigerants that will result in reduced 

energy efficiency compared to the 

refrigerants being listed unacceptable in 

this final rule. 

Comment: The Alliance, AHAM, 

AHRI, and a number of other 

commenters in the commercial 

refrigeration and home appliance 

industries suggested that the SNAP 

rulemaking schedule should be better 

coordinated with the ongoing DOE 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking schedules. AHAM 

comments that firms have invested 

millions of dollars to meet new DOE 

conservation standards that were based 

on the assumption of the availability of 

HFCs, and have diverted the scarce 

capital that is available for regulationdriven investment. The National 

Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 

requested that the EPA harmonize the 

rule with the DOE rule in order to ease 

the capital- and design-intensive 

manufacturer transition. Scotsman Ice 

Systems and Whirlpool Corporation 

stated that as a result of the potential 

regulatory measures, their ability to 

develop any customer focused products 

or new product features during this time 

will be constrained. GE Appliances 

notes that the burden of overlapping 

regulatory requirements between SNAP 

and the DOE require consideration and 

review under the executive orders 

issued by President Obama and his 

predecessors that require consideration 

of cumulative regulatory burden. 

Response: EPA’s timeframes are based 

upon our understanding of the 

availability of alternatives, considering 

technical challenges and supply. The 

timeframes in this final rule take into 

account additional information on 

availability provided to the Agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42948 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

103 ICF, 2015a. Revised Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives. July 2015. 

104 ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives—Revised. July 

2015. 

105EPA, 2015. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule, July 2015. 

during the comment period. These 

timeframes account for the time needed 

to meet the technical challenge of 

designing equipment using alternative 

refrigerants that can meet the DOE 

requirements. We note that EPA and 

DOE coordinate to the extent possible. 

For example, each agency has reviewed 

the other’s rules. The list of acceptable 

SNAP alternatives is evolving. EPA is 

also coordinating with DOE to ensure 

more alternative refrigerants are being 

tested for energy efficiency. We 

recognize that as manufacturers focus 

on designing equipment to meet the 

DOE standards and to use refrigerants 

acceptable under the SNAP program, 

they may need to divert design 

resources from other projects for that 

period of time. However, as provided in 

section VII.A.7, this type of transition 

cost is not a part of the SNAP review 

criteria. As explained in the Statutory 

and Executive Order sections at the end 

of the NPRM and of this final rule, EPA 

has complied with those requirements. 

Comment: The National Restaurant 

Association (NRA) comments that the 

food industry is already being affected 

by the EPA’s rule Listing of Substitutes 

for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

and Revision of the Venting Prohibition 

for Certain Refrigerant Substitutes. NRA 

believes the EPA should consider the 

impacts of the cumulative regulatory 

burden of rulemakings and standards 

imposed nearly simultaneously on 

manufacturers of this equipment in the 

final rulemaking. 

Response: The rule entitled ‘‘Listing of 

Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning and Revision of the 

Venting Prohibition for Certain 

Refrigerant Substitutes’’ lists additional 

substitutes as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions. It does not mandate use of 

the newly listed substitutes. Thus, it is 

unclear how it might result in 

cumulative regulatory burden together 

with this rule. Equipment designed 

using the refrigerants in that rule is not 

affected by this rule, which concerns 

different refrigerants. Finally, that rule 

also has an exemption from 

requirements under section 608 of the 

CAA that will reduce regulatory burden. 

Comment: Danfoss commented that 

several of the refrigerants listed as 

acceptable in the rule titled Listing of 

Substitutes for Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning and Revision of the 

Venting Prohibition for Certain 

Refrigerant Substitutes are severely 

restricted by building codes and would 

not be acceptable for use in most areas 

of the U.S, mainly due to their 

flammability. Danfoss stated they 

believe that the proposed replacement 

refrigerants are not able to be used as 

short term alternatives to those being 

found unacceptable because changes to 

model building codes and subsequent 

adoption by states and localities will 

likely be much later than 2020. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

some building codes may currently 

restrict or prohibit use of flammable 

refrigerants. We note that other available 

or potentially available refrigerants that 

are not flammable and have relatively 

low GWP (roughly 600 or less), 

including R–744 and R–450A, are listed 

as acceptable for use in retail food 

refrigeration and in vending machines. 

Comment: A number of manufacturers 

of laboratory refrigeration equipment 

and several foam manufacturers 

suggested that EPA align the timelines 

for transition of foam blowing agents 

and refrigerants with the requirements 

of the EU F–Gas regulations. The 

commenters summarized the deadlines 

for foams as: 2008 for one-component 

foams, January 1, 2020, for XPS, January 

1, 2023, for other foams, and provisions 

for a four-year extension of time where 

(1) ‘‘alternatives are not available or 

cannot be used for technical or safety 

reasons’’ or (2) ‘‘the use of technically 

feasible and safe alternatives would 

entail disproportionate costs.’’ 

Commenters summarized the deadlines 

for refrigerants in commercial 

refrigerators and freezers as being 

January 1, 2020, for HFCs with GWP of 

2,500 and January 1, 2022, for HFCs 

with GWP of 150 or more. 

Reasons given for this coordination of 

timeline with EU regulations include: 

Many companies are trans-national and 

had already been planning on a 

transition in line with the EU regulatory 

deadlines; the SNAP program has 

deferred to other regulations in the past; 

and the later deadlines will allow for 

redesign of refrigeration equipment for 

both alternative, flammable refrigerants 

and for new foam blowing agents and 

for needed third-party testing. 

Commenters stated that the proposed 

deadlines would create an extreme 

burden, particularly on small 

businesses; that part supplies needed for 

compliance are not offered in the United 

States; and that the transition is a 

complicated undertaking that cannot be 

performed in 18 months. 

Response: EPA disagrees that it 

should align the timelines in this rule 

with the EU timelines. The EU 

regulations are based upon different 

authority from the SNAP program and 

we must decide upon timelines based 

upon the availability of alternatives in 

the United States. Concerning the 

suggestion that EPA has deferred to 

other regulations, we note that there are 

several key differences. As an initial 

matter, we have deferred to U.S. 

regulations. More importantly, we have 

not deferred to other regulations in a 

manner that overrides the statutory 

mandate governing the SNAP program. 

Rather, in the context evaluating risks of 

alternatives under our comparative risk 

framework we have looked to 

regulations in effect, such as workplace 

regulations from OSHA or the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, to determine whether a 

specific alternative may be used as 

safely as other available alternatives. 

This is different from aligning with a 

timeline in another nation’s regulations 

that are not effective within the United 

States or deferring to considerations in 

those regulations, such as transition 

costs, that are not part of the SNAP 

decision criteria. 

F. Other Comments 

Additional public comments not 

already discussed above along with 

EPA’s responses are available in the 

Response to Comments document 

which accompanies this action (EPA, 

2015a). 

VIII. Additional Analyses 

EPA does not consider the cost of 

transition to other alternatives in 

making listing decisions because under 

the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is 

limited to cost of the substitute under 

review. However, EPA has prepared 

technical support documents including 

analyses of costs associated with sector 

transitions, estimated avoided GHG 

emissions associated with the transition 

to alternatives, and potential small 

business impacts.103 104 105

The transition scenarios analyzed 

possible ways to comply with the final 

rule. The transition scenario in the cost 

analysis reflects a direct compliance 

cost method and does not assume the 

regulated community chooses highercost solutions where known less costly 

solutions exist. The scenarios analyzed 

in the avoided GHG emissions analysis 

reflect possible transitions for 

compliance based on considerations of 

the market and activity towards lowerGWP solutions. While the emission 

reductions have been quantified, they 

have not been monetized. Thus, higher 

or lower GHG emission reductions do 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42949 

not necessarily correlate to higher or 

lower costs due to the different 

assumptions and methodologies used in 

the different analyses. However, the 

transitions assumed in the lower, less 

aggressive scenario here are similar to 

the transitions assumed in the cost 

analysis. 

To extend the assessment to all-sized 

businesses potentially affected by the 

rulemaking, EPA conducted an analysis 

on costs to all-sized businesses building 

on the approach taken to estimate 

potential economic impacts on small 

businesses. Using a 7% discount rate, 

total annualized compliance costs 

across affected businesses are estimated 

to range from $28.0 million to $50.6 

million; total annual savings are 

estimated to be about $19.3 million. 

Using a 3% discount rate, total 

annualized compliance costs across 

affected businesses are estimated to 

range from $19.5 million to $37.8 

million, total annual savings are 

estimated be about $19.3 million. 

EPA conducted an analysis on the 

potential avoided GHG emissions 

associated with implementation of this 

final rule. The emissions avoided from 

this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 

31 MMTCO2eq in 2020. The avoided 

emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64 

MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 

MMTCO2eq in 2030 (EPA, 2015b) . 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. OMB has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations and has assigned 

OMB control number 2060–0226. This 

final rule contains no new requirements 

for reporting or recordkeeping. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The requirements of this final rule with 

respect to HFCs, will impact 

manufacturers of some consumer and 

technical aerosol products, retail food 

refrigeration equipment, vending 

machines, motor vehicles, and products 

containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, 

polyolefin, PU, and polystyrene foams. 

The requirements of this final rule with 

respect to HCFCs could theoretically 

affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, 

industrial cleaning solvents, fire 

suppressants, and adhesives, coatings, 

and inks; however, due to existing 

regulations that restrict the use of 

HCFCs in these products, no actual 

impact is expected. In some uses, there 

is no significant impact of the final rule 

because the substitutes proposed to be 

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

of HFC–134a as a propellant in 

consumer aerosol products, use of HFC– 

134a as a foam blowing agent in various 

polyurethane foams). A significant 

portion of the businesses regulated 

under this rule are not small businesses 

(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance 

manufacturers). About 500,000 small 

businesses could be subject to the rule, 

although more than 99% of those 

businesses are expected to experience 

zero compliance costs because other 

available substitutes for supermarket 

refrigeration systems and condensing 

units have costs similar to those of the 

refrigerants listed as unacceptable. For 

those small businesses with compliance 

costs, impacts are estimated to range 

from 0% to 48% of annual sales, with 

approximately 57 businesses expected 

to experience an impact of 3.0% of 

annual sales or more. Details of this 

analysis are presented in the document, 

Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High–GWP Alternatives—Revised 

(ICF, 2015b). In our analysis, we found 

that while some small businesses may 

experience significant costs, the number 

of small businesses that would 

experience significant costs is not 

substantial. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in EO 12866, and 

because the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action do 

not present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action restricts the use of 

certain substitutes that have greater 

overall risks for human health and the 

environment, primarily due to their 

high global warming potential. The 

reduction in GHG emissions would 

provide climate benefits for all people, 

including benefits for children and 

future generations. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol 

uses are not related to the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. For the 

end-uses that are related to energy 

effects, including refrigeration and air 

conditioning and some rigid cell PU and 

polystyrene insulation foams, a number 

of alternatives are available to replace 

those refrigerants and foam blowing 

agents that are listed as unacceptable in 

this action; many of the alternatives are 

as energy-efficient or more energyefficient than the substitutes being listed 

as unacceptable. As described in more 

detail in this document, energy 

efficiency is influenced, but not 

determined, by the refrigerant. 

Similarly, although foam blowing agents 

influence the insulation properties of 

rigid cell foams, this also can vary due 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42950 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to other properties of the foam (e.g., 

thickness). Thus, we have concluded 

that this rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This action 

would prohibit a number of substances 

with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction 

in ODS and GWP emissions would 

assist in restoring the stratospheric 

ozone layer and provide climate 

benefits. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

X. References 

This preamble references the 

following documents, which are also in 

the Air Docket at the address listed in 

section I.B.1. Unless specified 

otherwise, all documents are available 

electronically through the Federal 

Docket Management System, Docket 

#EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. 

AGC, 2014. AGC to Supply Honeywell with 

HFO-1234yf—New-generation 

Automobile Refrigerant, 23 January 2014. 

This document is accessible at: https:// 

www.agc.com/english/news/2014/

0123e.pdf. 

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent 

Scientific and Papers, 2013. 

Andersen, S.O., Sherman, N.J., Craig, T., 

Baker, J., ‘‘Secondary Loop Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems (SL– 

MACs). Using Low-Global Warming 

Potential (GWP) Refrigerants.’’ In LeakTight Systems in Climates with High 

Fuel Prices and Long, Hot and Humid 

Cooling Seasons. Building on the 

Previous Success of Delphi, Fiat, General 

Motors, Volvo, Red Dot, SAE 

Cooperative Research Projects, and Other 

Engineering Groups.’’ MACS Briefing, 

2015. 

Arkema, 2013. Arkema is announcing the 

construction of production capacities for 

new refrigerant fluorinated gas 1234yf, 

September 4, 2013. This document is 

accessible at: www.arkema.com/en/

media/news/news-details/Arkema-isannouncing-the-construction-ofproduction-capacities-for-newrefrigerant-fluorinated-gas-1234yf/

?back=true. 

Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener 

Freezers. This document is accessible at 

www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-dobusiness/cleaner-greener-freezers. 

CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on ClimateFriendly Alternatives in Commercial 

Refrigeration. Meeting Summary, 

December 8, 2012. 

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

document is accessible at: assets.cocacolacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f

4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-grireport.pdf. 

Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 

Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, 

Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, 

January 22, 2014. This document is 

accessible at: www.cocacolacompany.com/press-center/pressreleases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionthhfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2. 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

(CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized 

Products Survey—61st Annual Products 

Survey. April 15, 2012. 

Cooling Post, 2014. Spanish store first to test 

new R404A ‘‘drop-in.’’ October 5, 2014. 

This document is accessible at: 

www.coolingpost.com/world-news/

spanish-store-first-to-test-new-r404adrop-in/. 

Daimler, 2014. ‘‘Climate Change: EU 

Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns 

About New Auto Refrigerant Are 

Unwarranted,’’ Stephen Gardner, BNA 

Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 

11, 2014. This document is accessible at: 

news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_

display.adp?fedfid=4276

0350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=

a0e7p0q0q7&split=0. 

Directive 2006/40/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 

2006 (EU MAC Directive). This 

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

LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:

EN:HTM. 

Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. 

Refrigerants. March 13, 2014. 

EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or 

Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases under section 202 (a) of the Clean 

Air Act. Technical Support Document. 

December 7, 2009. 

EPA, 2011a. Greenchill. ‘‘Advanced 

Refrigeration’’. This document is 

accessible at: www2.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/documents/gc_

storecertprogram08232011.pdf. 

EPA, 2011b. GreenChill. ‘‘Best Practices 

Guidelines: Commercial Refrigeration 

Retrofits’’. August 2011. This document 

is accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/

sites/production/files/documents/

retrofit_guideline_august_2011.pdf. 

EPA, 2012a. Factsheet: Summary of 

Refrigerant Reclamation 2000–2013. This 

document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/ 

spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/

recsum_merged.pdf. 

EPA, 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025 LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, EPA–420–R–12– 

016, August 2012. 

EPA, 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 

Greenhouse Gases: 2010–2030, 

September 2013. 

EPA, 2013b. Benefits of Addressing HFCs 

under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. 

EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. 

EPA, 2015a. Response to Comments on the 

SNAP Status Change Rule. July 2015. 

EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule, July 2015. 

EPA, 2015c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013, 

EPA Report 430–R–15–004. April 15, 

2015. This document is accessible at: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/

ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

EPA, 2015d. Table of Alternatives for EndUses Considered in the Final Rule, 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes Under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program. February, 

2015. 

FTOC, 2010. 2010 Report of the Foams 

Technical Option Committee. 

Gaved, 2015. Emerson Climate Technologies 

Offers to Help Supply Chain Move to 

Lower-GWP Refrigerants. January 28, 

2015. This document is accessible at: 

http://www.racplus.com/news/-emersonclimate-technologies-offers-to-helpsupply-chain-move-to-lower-gwprefrigerants/8677708.article. 

GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission 

to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, October 2008. 

Honeywell, 2014a. Aerosols OverviewHoneywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA 

meeting. February 27, 2014. 

Honeywell, 2014b. Honeywell International 

Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection 

of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of 

Listing Status for Certain Substitutes 

Under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. October 20, 2014. 

Honeywell, 2015. Honeywell Starts FullScale Production of Low-GlobalWarming Propellant, Insulating Agent, 

and Refrigerant. January 6, 2015. This 

document is accessible at: 

honeywell.com/News/Pages/HoneywellStarts-Full-Scale-Production-Of-LowGlobal-Warming-Propellant-InsulatingAgent-And-Refrige.aspx. 

ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the 

U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the 

U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42951 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the 

U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. May, 2014. 

ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

Industry. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. May, 

2014. 

ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential 

Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on 

Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 

February, 2014. 

ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Options to 

Change Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. June 2014. 

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

Change Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives. June 2014. 

ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in 

Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam; 

Rigid Polyurethane Commercial 

Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels; 

Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate 

Laminate Boardstock; Rigid 

Polyurethane Slabstock; Flexible 

Polyurethane; Integral Skin Polyurethane 

Substitute: Methylal October, 2014. 

ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the 

U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. 

Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial 

Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015. 

ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 

Listing Status of High-GWP 

Alternatives—Revised. July, 2015. 

ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives. July, 2015. 

IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 

Prepared by the National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston 

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

Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for 

Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 

Japan. This document is accessible at: 

www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/

index.html. 

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

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

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

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

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA. This document is accessible at: 

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System 

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

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

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

Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

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

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

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

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

University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 

Global Climate System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, 

New York). 

ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014. Comments of 

ITW Polymers Sealants North America 

on Proposed SNAP Status Change Rule. 

October 15, 2014. Docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198–0071. 

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

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, 

ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. 

Nelson, 2013. Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ 

switch to new refrigerant will accelerate 

with EPA credits, European mandate’’ 

Automobile News, December 30, 2013. 

This document is accessible at: 

www.autonews.com/article/20131230/

OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea. 

NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://

ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. 

Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 

Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion 

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

trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional 

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

10874, 2010. 

PepsiCo, 2009. PepsiCo Brings First ClimateFriendly Vending Machines to the U.S., 

March 30, 2009. This document is 

accessible at http://

www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/

pepsico-brings-first-climate-friendlyvending-machines-to-the-us61975262.html. 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 

2015. ‘‘Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFCfree global refrigeration target.’’ This 

document is accessible at: 

www.racplus.com/news/coca-cola-tonarrowly-miss-hfc-free-globalrefrigeration-target/8680290.article). 

Shapiro, Doron. ‘‘System Drop-In Tests of R134a, R-1234yf, OpteonTM XP10, R1234ze(E), and N13a in a Commercial 

Bottle Cooler/Freezer’’, January 25, 2013. 

This document is accessible at http://

www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/

files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/

AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt008.pdf. 

Shecco, 2013a. Guide 2013: Natural 

Refrigerants—Market Growth for North 

America. This document is accessible at 

publication.shecco.com/publications/

view/6. 

Shecco, 2013b. HCs Gaining Market 

Prominence in US—View from the 

NAFEM Show—Part 1, February 18, 

2013. This document is accessible at 

http://www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/

viewprintable/3891. 

Shecco, 2015. New Regulations Inspire 

Hydrocarbon Displays at U.S. NAFEM 

Show, February 24, 2015. This document 

is accessible at http://

www.hydrocarbons21.com/news/

viewprintable/6143. 

UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible 

Foams Technical Options Committee, 

2010 Assessment. This document is 

accessible at: ozone.unep.org/

Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/

FTOC/FTOC-2010-AssessmentReport.pdf. 

UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in 

Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, 

A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 

2011. This document is accessible at: 

www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/

HFC_report.pdf. 

UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: 

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, 

Additional Information on Alternatives 

to ODS. September, 2013. This document 

is accessible at: conf.montrealprotocol.org/meeting/mop/cop10- 

mop26/presession/Background%

20Documents%20are%20available%

20in%20English%20o1/Corrigendum_

TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-

September2013.pdf. 

UNEP, 2014. Summary of the Information 

Submitted By Parties on Their 

Implementation of Paragraph 9 of 

Decision XIX/6 to Promote a Transition 

from Ozone-Depleting Substances That 

Minimizes Environmental Impact 

(Decision XXV/5, Paragraph 3). 

November, 2014. This document is 

accessible at: conf.montreal-protocol.org/ 

meeting/mop/cop10-mop26/presession/

PreSession%20Documents/MOP-26– 

9E.pdf. 

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

M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009). 

‘‘The large contribution of projected HFC 

emissions to future climate forcing.’’ 

Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. 

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

‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s 

Potential Impact on Atmospheric 

Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric 

Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, 

IL. September 26, 2011. 

Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces 

Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf 

Issue, Explores Other Options,’’ 

Automotive Engineering International, 

April 2, 2013. 

WMO, 2010. World Meteorological 

Organization, Global Ozone Research 

and Monitoring Project—Report No. 52, 

516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: July 2, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42952 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671q. 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

■ 2. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 

is amended as follows: 

■ a. By removing the first entry and 

adding four entries in its place in the 

table titled ‘‘Refrigerants—Acceptable 

Subject to Use Conditions’’. 

■ b. By adding a new entry at the bottom 

of the table ‘‘Refrigerants—Acceptable 

Subject to Narrowed Use Limits’’. 

■ c. By adding three new entries at the 

end of the table titled ‘‘Refrigerants— 

Unacceptable Substitutes’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments 

CFC–12 Automobile Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning 

(New Equipment/NIKs 

only).

HFC–134a .... Acceptable subject to use conditions, for 

passenger cars and light-duty trucks 

manufactured for Model Year 2020 or 

earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks.

—must be used with unique 

fittings.

—must be used with detailed labels.

EPA is concerned that the existence of 

several substitutes in this end-use may 

increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning 

systems and recovery/recycling equipment. 

CFC–12 Automobile Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning 

(New Equipment/NIKs 

only).

HCFC Blend 

Beta (R– 

416A).

Acceptable subject to use conditions, for 

passenger cars and light-duty trucks 

manufactured for Model Year 2016 or 

earlier, and for vehicles other than passenger cars or light-duty trucks.

—must be used with unique 

fittings.

—must be used with detailed labels.

EPA is concerned that the existence of 

several substitutes in this end-use may 

increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning 

systems and recovery/recycling equipment. 

CFC–12 Automobile Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning 

(New Equipment/NIKs 

only).

R–401C ........ Acceptable subject to use conditions ........ —must be used with unique 

fittings.

—must be used with detailed labels.

EPA is concerned that the existence of 

several substitutes in this end-use may 

increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning 

systems and recovery/recycling equipment. 

CFC–12 Automobile Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning 

(Retrofit Equipment only).

HFC–134a, 

R–401C, 

HCFC 

Blend Beta 

(R–416A).

Acceptable subject to use conditions ........ —must be used with unique 

fittings.

—must be used with detailed labels.

—all CFC–12 must be removed from the system 

prior to retrofitting.

Refer to the text for a full 

description.

EPA is concerned that the existence of 

several substitutes in this end-use may 

increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning 

systems and recovery/recycling equipment. No distinction is made between 

‘‘retrofit’’ and ‘‘drop-in’’ refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant 

includes all procedures that result in the 

air conditioning system using a new refrigerant. 

* * * * * * * 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Comments 

*******

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only).

HFC–134a .......................... Acceptable for use in 

Model Year (MY) 2021 

through MY 2025 passenger cars and lightduty trucks destined for 

export, where reasonable 

efforts have been made 

to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible because 

of lack of infrastructure 

for servicing with alternative refrigerants in the 

destination country.

Vehicle manufacturers must document their determination that the infrastructure is not in place for each 

country to which they plan to export vehicles and 

must retain the documentation in their files for at 

least five years after date of its creation for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. 

Documentation is to include descriptions of: 

• Products in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected for the destination country; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives; and 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be available 

and projected date of transition in the destination 

country. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42953 

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments 

*******

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only).

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

Year 2021 except where 

allowed under narrowed 

use limit.

HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

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

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

HFC–134a has a GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes 

will be available for this end-use with lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment by the 

status change date. 

This listing does not prohibit the servicing or replacement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems manufactured to use HFC–134a. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only).

R–406A, R–414A (HCFC 

Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R– 

414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta 

(Free Zone), Freeze 12, 

GHG-X5, HCFC Blend 

Lambda (GHG-HP), R– 

416A (FRIGC FR-12, 

HCFC Blend Beta).

Unacceptable as of Model 

Year 2017.

These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have 

GWPs ranging from 1,080 to 2,340 and ODPs ranging from 0.008 to 0.056. Other substitutes will be 

available for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment by the status 

change date. 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment 

in passenger cars and 

light-duty trucks only).

SP34E, R–426A (RS-24, 

new formulation).

Unacceptable as of Model 

Year 2017.

These blends have GWPs ranging from approximately 

1,410 to 1,510. Other substitutes will be available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment by the status change date. 

■ 3. Appendix D to subpart G of part 82 

is amended by revising the third 

paragraph to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes 

Summary of Decisions 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Acceptable Subject to Use 

Conditions 

* * * * * 

In addition, the use of a) R–406A/

‘‘GHG’’/‘‘McCool’’, ‘‘HCFC Blend 

Lambda’’/‘‘GHG-HP’’, R–414A/‘‘HCFC 

Blend Xi’’/‘‘GHG-X4/‘‘Autofrost’’/

‘‘Chill-It’’, R–414B/‘‘Hot Shot’’/‘‘Kar 

Kool’’, and R–416A/‘‘HCFC Blend 

Beta’’/‘‘FREEZE 12’’ as CFC–12 

substitutes in retrofitted MVACs, and b) 

all refrigerants submitted for, and listed 

in, subsequent Notices of Acceptability 

as substitutes for CFC–12 in MVACs, 

must meet the following conditions. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 

is added to read as follows: 

Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Unacceptable Substitutes and 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

Listed in the July 20, 2015 Final Rule, 

Effective August 19, 2015 

AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Propellants ...... HFC–125 ........... Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2016.

HFC–125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 354–33–6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2- 

pentafluoropropane. HFC–125 has a GWP of 3,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment by the status change date. 

Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 

1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after 

that date. 

Propellants ...... HFC–134a ......... Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016, 

except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.

HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment by the status change date. 

Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to July 20, 

2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after 

that date. 

Propellants ...... HFC–227ea and 

blends of 

HFC–134a and 

HFC–227ea.

Unacceptable as of July 20, 2016, 

except uses listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.

HFC–227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 

(CAS Reg. No.) of 431–89–0 and it is also known by the name 

1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and 

it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. 

HFC–227ea and HFC–134a have GWPs of 3,220 and 1,430, respectively. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by the status 

change date. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42954 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Products using these propellants that are manufactured prior to July 

20, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used 

after that date. 

Propellants ...... HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b.

Unacceptable effective September 

18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–22 and 

HCFC–142b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These propellants 

have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively. 

Solvents .......... HCFC–141b and 

blends thereof.

Unacceptable effective September 

18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC–141b for 

aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11. 

SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

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

subject to 

use conditions.

The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use from 

July 20, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and are unacceptable thereafter.

• products for functional testing of smoke detectors ..............

• products for which new formulations require governmental 

review, including: EPA pesticide registration, approval for 

conformance with military or space agency specifications, 

or FDA approval (other than MDIs).

The classes of products listed below are acceptable for use and 

other uses are unacceptable as of July 20, 2016: 

• metered dose inhalers approved by the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration for medical purposes.

• cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other 

soils from electrical equipment or electronics.

• refrigerant flushes .................................................................

• products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors ..............

• lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or 

electronics.

HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number (CAS 

Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 

and it is also known by 

the name 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoropropane. 

HFC–134a has a GWP 

of 1,430. Use is allowed for the specified 

uses because of the 

technical and safety 

demands in these applications. 

Aerosol products using 

this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to 

July 20, 2016, may be 

sold, imported, exported, distributed and 

used after that date. 

• sprays for aircraft maintenance. 

• sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the 

maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or 

military equipment. 

• pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides 

for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP 

propellants. 

• mold release agents and mold cleaners. 

• lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics. 

• duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic 

negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical equipment. 

• adhesives and sealants in large canisters. 

• document preservation sprays. 

• wound care sprays. 

• topical coolant sprays for pain relief. 

• products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. 

Propellants ...... HFC–227ea 

and blends 

of HFC– 

227ea and 

HFC–134a.

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

Acceptable for use in metered dose inhalers approved by the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration for medical purposes and 

unacceptable for all other uses as of July 20, 2016.

HFC–227ea has a 

Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 

431–89–0 and it is 

also known by the 

name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3- 

heptafluoropropane. 

HFC–227ea has a 

GWP of 3,220. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42955 

SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Aerosol products using 

this propellant that are 

manufactured prior to 

July 20, 2016 may be 

sold, imported, exported, distributed and 

used after that date. 

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Retail food refrigeration 

(supermarket systems) (new).

HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2017.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be 

available for this end-use with lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment 

by the status change date. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(supermarket systems) (retrofit).

R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of 

July 20, 2016.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be 

available for this end-use with lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment 

by the status change date. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(remote condensing 

units) (new).

HFC–227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– 

422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– 

434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2018.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be 

available for this end-use with lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment 

by the status change date. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(remote condensing 

units) (retrofit).

R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–428A, R–434A, R–507A.

Unacceptable as of 

July 20, 2016.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

2,729 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be 

available for this end-use with lower overall 

risk to human health and the environment 

by the status change date. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone medium-temperature 

units with a compressor capacity 

below 2,200 Btu/hr 

and not containing a 

flooded evaporator) 

(new).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, 

R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2019.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment 

that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C). 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone medium-temperature 

units with a compressor capacity 

below 2,200 Btu/hr 

and containing a 

flooded evaporator) 

(new).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, 

R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2020.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment 

that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C). 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone medium-temperature 

units with a compressor capacity 

equal to or greater 

than 2,200 Btu/hr) 

(new).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC–227ea, 

KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

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

407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, 

R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– 

422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2020.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

‘‘Medium-temperature’’ refers to equipment 

that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32°F (0 °C). 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone lowtemperature units) 

(new).

HFC–227ea, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a 

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

407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, 

R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 

422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R– 

428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, 

RS–44 (2003 formulation).

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2020.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 1,800 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

‘‘Low-temperature’’ refers to equipment that 

maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32°F (0 °C). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42956 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Retail food refrigeration 

(stand-alone units 

only) (retrofit).

R–404A, R–507A ............................................ Unacceptable as of 

July 20, 2016.

These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes 

will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. 

Vending machines 

(new only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, KDD6, R– 

125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R– 

404A, R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, 

R–421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– 

426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS-24 

(2002 formulation), SP34E.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2019.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 1,100 to 3,985. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

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

July 20, 2016.

These refrigerants have GWPs of approximately 3,922 and 3,985. Other substitutes 

will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

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

245fa, HFC–365mfc 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2020, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich 

Panels.

HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2020, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

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

245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and Other.

HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2019, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42957 

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

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated Boardstock.

HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation Foam.HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2020, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

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 

Sheet.

HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

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 TI, 

Formacel B, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2021, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Integral Skin Polyurethane.HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

42958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Polyolefin ....................... HFC–134a, HFC– 

245fa, HFC–365mfc, 

and blends thereof; 

Formacel TI, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2020, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

Phenolic Insulation 

Board and Bunstock.

HFC–143a, HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, and blends 

thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, 

until January 1, 2022, only in 

military or space- and aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have 

been made to ascertain that 

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

Users are required to document and retain the 

results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. Information should include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or 

safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be 

available and projected time for switching. 

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

All Foam Blowing End-uses HCFC–141b and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable effective 

September 18, 2015.

HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 

under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found 

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

HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential 

(ODP) of 0.11. 

All Foam Blowing end-uses HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, 

and blends thereof.

Unacceptable effective 

September 18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for foam blowing is prohibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, recovered, and recycled. These compounds have 

ODPs of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively. 

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.

These foam blowing agents have global warming potentials (GWPs) ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other 

substitutes will be available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. 

Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, 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.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

Phenolic Insulation Board 

and Bunstock.

HFC-143a, HFC–134a, 

HFC–245fa, HFC– 

365mfc, and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

725 to 4,470. Other substitutes will be available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment by the status change date. 

Integral Skin Polyurethane .. HFC–134a, 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.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Slabstock and Other.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z-6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

Rigid Polyurethane and 

Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk to human health 

and the environment by the status change date. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42959 

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Rigid Polyurethane: Marine 

Flotation Foam.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z-6;.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and 

Sandwich Panels.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z-6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

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

HFC–365mfc and blends 

thereof; Formacel TI, 

and Formacel Z-6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

Polystyrene: Extruded 

Boardstock and Billet.

HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, 

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, Formacel B, and 

Formacel Z-6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 140 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

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

HFC–365mfc, and 

blends thereof; Formacel 

TI, and Formacel Z-6.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 except 

where allowed under a 

narrowed use limit.

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 

higher than 370 to approximately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by 

the status change date. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

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

September 18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

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

2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 

STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

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

22.

Unacceptable effective 

September 18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

HCFC–22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January 

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

subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion 

potential of 0.055. 

ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Adhesives, coatings and 

inks.

HCFC–141b and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable effective 

September 18, 2015.

Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 

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

has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17066 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2