Vol. 81 Monday, 

No. 74 April 18, 2016 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 82 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; 

Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 

Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition 

for Propane; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22810 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663; FRL–9941–84– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS80 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; 

Changes of Listing Status; and 

Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 

Closed Cell Foam Products Under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program; and Revision of Clean Air 

Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for 

Propane 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives 

Policy program, this action proposes to 

list a number of substances as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions; to 

list several substances as unacceptable; 

and to modify the listing status for 

certain substances from acceptable to 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits, or to unacceptable. Specifically, 

this action proposes to list as 

acceptable, subject to use restrictions, 

propane and HFO-1234yf in the 

refrigeration and air conditioning, and 

2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene in the 

fire suppression and explosion 

protection sectors; to list as 

unacceptable certain hydrocarbons and 

hydrocarbon blends in specific end-uses 

in the refrigeration and air conditioning 

sector; and to modify the listing status 

for certain high-global warming 

potential alternatives for certain enduses in the refrigeration and air 

conditioning, foam blowing, and fire 

suppression and explosion protection 

sectors. This action also proposes to 

exempt propane in certain refrigeration 

end-uses from the Clean Air Act section 

608 prohibition on venting, release, or 

disposal on the basis of current 

evidence that its venting, release, or 

disposal does not pose a threat to the 

environment. In addition, this action 

proposes to apply unacceptability 

determinations for foam-blowing agents 

to closed cell foam products and 

products containing closed cell foam 

that are manufactured or imported using 

these foam-blowing agents. This action 

also proposes to clarify the listing for 

Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X®), which is 

currently listed as both acceptable and 

acceptable subject to use conditions, by 

removing the listing as acceptable 

subject to use conditions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2016. Any party 

requesting a public hearing must notify 

the contact listed below under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. 

Eastern Daylight Time on May 3, 2016. 

If a hearing is held, it will take place on 

or about May 18, 2016 in Washington, 

DC and further information will be 

provided on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone 

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0663, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public 

docket. Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://www2.

epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205 

T), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–564–7768; email address: 

Farquharson.chenise@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 

www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. 

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 

proposed action? 

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. How does EPA regulate substitute 

refrigerants under CAA section 608? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

concerning venting, release, or disposal 

of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes 

under CAA section 608? 

B. What are EPA’s regulations concerning 

venting, release, or disposal of refrigerant 

substitutes? 

C. What did EPA recently propose 

regarding management of refrigerant 

substitutes under CAA section 608? 

VI. What is EPA proposing in this action? 

A. Retail Food Refrigeration and Stationary 

AC 

1. Proposed Listing of Propane as 

Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, 

for Commercial Ice Machines, Water 

Coolers, and Very Low Temperature 

Refrigeration Equipment 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

b. How does propane compare to other 

refrigerants for these end-uses with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

c. What are the proposed use conditions? 

d. What recommendations does EPA have 

for the safe use of propane? 

e. When would the listing apply? 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

2. Proposed Exemption for Propane From 

the Venting Prohibition Under CAA 

Section 608 for the End-Uses in the 

Proposed New SNAP Listing 

a. What is EPA’s proposal regarding 

whether venting of propane in the enduses in this action would pose a threat 

to the environment? 

b. What is EPA’s proposal regarding 

whether venting of propane in the enduses in this action should be exempted 

from the venting prohibition under CAA 

section 608? 

c. When would the exemption from the 

venting prohibition apply? 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed exemption under CAA section 

608 and other EPA rules? 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

3. Proposed Listing of New Refrigerants as 

Unacceptable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22811 

a. Proposed Listing of Certain Flammable 

Refrigerants as Unacceptable for Retrofits 

in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat 

Pumps 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for these end-uses with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. When would the listings apply? 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

b. Proposed Listing of Propylene and R443A as Unacceptable for New 

Residential and Light Commercial AC 

and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage 

Warehouses, and Centrifugal and 

Positive Displacement Chillers 

i. What are the affected end-uses? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for these end-uses with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. When would the listings apply? 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

4. Proposed Changes in Listing Status 

a. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Centrifugal 

Chillers 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for this end-use with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. What narrowed use limits for military 

marine vessels and human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment is EPA proposing? 

v. When would the status change? 

vi. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

b. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Positive 

Displacement Chillers 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for this end-use with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. What narrowed use limits for military 

marine vessels and human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment is EPA proposing? 

v. When would the status change? 

vi. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

c. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Cold Storage 

Warehouses 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for this end-use with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. When would the status change? 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

e. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Household 

Refrigerators and Freezers 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to 

list as unacceptable? 

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 

for this end-use with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

iv. When would the status change? 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

1. Proposed Listing of HFO-1234yf as 

Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, 

for Newly Manufactured MVAC Systems 

2. What is the affected end-use? 

3. How does HFO-1234yf compare to other 

refrigerants for these MVAC applications 

with respect to SNAP criteria? 

4. What are the proposed use conditions? 

5. When would the listing apply? 

6. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

7. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

C. Foam Blowing Agents 

1. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Foam Blowing Agents for Rigid PU 

Spray Foam 

a. What is the affected end-use? 

b. Which foam blowing agents is EPA 

proposing to list as unacceptable? 

c. How do the proposed unacceptable 

blowing agents compare to other blowing 

agents for these applications with respect 

to SNAP criteria? 

d. What narrowed use limits for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related 

applications is EPA proposing? 

e. When would the status change? 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

2. Proposed Revision To Change of Status 

Date of Certain HFCs and HFC Blends for 

Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam 

Applications 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

b. Which foam blowing agents are affected? 

c. When would the status change? 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

3. Proposed Change of Status for 

Methylene Chloride in Flexible PU, 

Integral Skin PU, and Polyolefin Foams 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

b. How does methylene chloride compare 

to other blowing agents for these enduses with respect to SNAP criteria? 

c. When would the status change? 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

4. Proposed Application of Listings to 

Foam Products 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

b. How would this proposal change the 

treatment of foam products under SNAP? 

c. How do other stratospheric ozone 

protection requirements apply to foam 

products? 

d. How is EPA reexamining treatment of 

foam products under SNAP? 

e. When would use of closed cell foam 

products with unacceptable blowing 

agents be unacceptable? 

f. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection 

1. Proposed Listing of 2-Bromo-3,3,3- 

Trifluoropropene (2-BTP) as Acceptable, 

Subject to Use Conditions, for Total 

Flooding and Streaming 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

b. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire 

suppressants for these end-uses with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

c. What are the proposed use conditions? 

d. What further information is EPA 

providing in the acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, listing for 2-BTP? 

e. When would the listing apply? 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

2. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

Perfluorocarbons 

a. What is the affected end-use? 

b. Which fire suppressants is EPA 

proposing to list as unacceptable? 

c. How do the proposed unacceptable fire 

suppressants compare to other fire 

suppressants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

d. When would the status change? 

e. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

f. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

3. Proposed Removal of Powdered Aerosol 

D in Total Flooding From the List of 

Substitutes Acceptable for Use Subject to 

Use Conditions 

VII. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

used interchangeably in this document. 

2The White House, 2013. President’s Climate 

Action Plan. This document is accessible at: https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/

president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

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 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

VIII. References 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

Under section 612 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), EPA is required to evaluate 

substitutes 1 to ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS) for their risks to 

human health and the environment. 

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 alternatives 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. Instead, the program 

evolves the list as EPA makes decisions 

informed by our overall understanding 

of the environmental and human health 

impacts as well as our current 

knowledge about other alternatives. 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. However, in 

some cases, the SNAP list has been 

modified by listing a substitute as 

unacceptable for one or more end-uses 

or by restricting the use of a previously 

listed substitute by changing its status 

for a particular end-use to unacceptable, 

acceptable subject to use conditions, or 

acceptable subject to narrowed use. 

In the decades since ODS were first 

invented in the 1920s, American 

consumers relied on products using 

ODS for diverse uses including aerosols, 

air conditioning, insulation, solvent 

cleaning, and fire protection. The 

agreement by governments to phase out 

production of ODS under the Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the 

Ozone Layer led to inevitable questions 

about whether suitable alternatives 

could be found in all cases, and in the 

larger sense, about how to limit negative 

societal impacts from use of 

alternatives. 

Over the past twenty years, the SNAP 

program has played an important role in 

assisting with a continuous smooth 

transition to safer alternatives, by 

addressing in concrete and highly 

technical terms, end-use by end-use, 

these myriad issues. From the first 

SNAP framework rule published in 

1994, which provided confidence and 

certainty by identifying safer 

alternatives in key consumer and 

industrial uses, the SNAP program has 

continued to ensure that businesses and 

consumers have access to information 

about suitable alternatives. The SNAP 

program works with many stakeholders, 

domestically and abroad, to 

continuously evaluate and provide 

updates on safer alternatives and new 

technologies. Thanks to these efforts 

and the work of individuals, businesses, 

and organizations, the transitions 

generally have been successful. Perhaps 

the best evidence of the program’s 

success has been the lack of fanfare with 

which so many important consumer and 

industrial uses have moved to adopt 

safer SNAP-listed alternatives. When 

reviewing a substitute, EPA compares 

the risk posed by that substitute to the 

risks posed by other alternatives and 

determines whether that specific 

substitute under review poses 

significantly more risk than other 

alternatives for the same use. EPA 

recently has begun to review the lists in 

a broader manner to determine whether 

substitutes added to the lists early in the 

program pose significantly more risk 

than substitutes that have more recently 

been added. As with initial listing 

decisions, decisions to change the status 

of an already listed alternative are based 

on applying our comparative risk 

framework. 

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) 2 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.’’ On July 20, 2015 (80 FR 

42870), EPA issued a final regulation 

that was our first effort to take a broader 

look at the SNAP lists, where we 

focused on those listed substitutes that 

have a high GWP relative to other 

alternatives in specific end-uses, while 

otherwise posing comparable levels of 

risk. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to list 

a number of substances as acceptable, 

subject to use restrictions; to list several 

substances as unacceptable; and to 

modify the listing status for certain 

substances from acceptable to 

unacceptable. We performed a 

comparative risk analysis, based on our 

criteria for review, with other 

alternatives for the relevant end-uses. 

For particular substances, EPA found 

significant potential differences in risk 

with respect to one or more specific 

criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, 

or local air quality concerns, while 

otherwise posing comparable levels of 

risk to those of other alternatives in 

specific end-uses. EPA is also proposing 

that the existing listing decisions for 

foam blowing agents apply to closed cell 

foam products and products containing 

closed cell foam. See section VI.C.4 for 

the details of this proposal. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to list 

propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, as a refrigerant in new 

self-contained commercial ice 

machines, in new water coolers, and in 

new very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. EPA is proposing to exempt 

propane in these end-uses from the 

venting prohibition under CAA section 

608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.a, ‘‘What is 

EPA’s proposal regarding whether 

venting of propane in the end-uses in 

this action would pose a threat to the 

environment?’’ for the details of this 

proposal. 

Per the guiding principles of the 

SNAP program, this action does not 

specify that any alternative is acceptable 

or unacceptable across all sectors and 

end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA 

considered the intersection between the 

specific alternative and the particular 

end-use and the availability of 

substitutes for those particular end-uses. 

In the case of refrigeration and air 

conditioning (AC), we consider new 

equipment to be a separate end-use from 

retrofitting existing equipment with a 

different refrigerant from that for which 

the equipment was originally designed. 

EPA is not setting a ‘‘risk threshold’’ for 

any specific SNAP criterion, such that 

the only acceptable substitutes pose risk 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22813 

3Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured on or 

before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. 

below a specified level of risk. Because 

the substitutes available and the types of 

risk they may pose vary by sector and 

end-use and under the SNAP 

comparative risk framework, our review 

focuses on the specific end-use and the 

alternatives for that end-use, including 

the other risks alternatives might pose. 

Thus, there is no bright line that can be 

established. Also, EPA recognizes that 

there are a range of substitutes with 

various uses that include both 

fluorinated (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and 

non-fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons 

(HCs), carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes 

that may pose lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Consistent with CAA section 612 as we 

have historically interpreted it under 

the SNAP program, EPA is proposing 

both initial listings and certain 

modifications to the current lists based 

on our evaluation of the substitutes 

addressed in this action using the SNAP 

criteria for evaluation and considering 

the current suite of other alternatives for 

the specific end-use at issue. 

1. Proposed Acceptable Alternatives, 

With Use Conditions, by End-Use 

(Initial Listings) 

(1) For refrigeration, we are proposing 

to list as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as of 30 days after 

publication of a final rule 

• Propane in new commercial ice 

machines, new water coolers, and new 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. 

(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning 

(MVAC) systems, we are proposing to 

list, as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as of 30 days after 

publication of a final rule 

• HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured 

medium-duty passenger vehicles 

(MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans. 

(3) For fire suppression and explosion 

protection end-uses, we are proposing to 

list as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as of 30 days after 

publication of a final rule 

• 2-BTP as a total flooding agent for 

use in engine nacelles and auxiliary 

power units (APUs) on aircraft; and 

• 2-BTP as a streaming agent for use 

in handheld extinguishers in aircraft. 

2. Proposed Unacceptable Alternatives 

by End-Use (Initial Listings) 

(1) For retrofit residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps— 

unitary split AC systems and heat 

pumps, we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, as of 30 days after 

publication of a final rule 

• All refrigerants identified as 

flammability Class 3 in American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34–2013; 

and 

• All refrigerants meeting the criteria 

for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 34–2013. These 

include, but are not limited to, 

refrigerant products sold under the 

names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a 

refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, 

DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze EF22a, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, 

Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and 

RED TEK 22a. 

(2) For new residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps, cold 

storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, 

and positive displacement chillers, we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, as 

of 30 days after publication of a final 

rule 

• Propylene and R-443A. 

3. Proposed Change of Listing Status by 

End-Use: 

(1) For new centrifugal chillers, we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

except as otherwise allowed under a 

narrowed use limit, as of January 1, 

2024 

• FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/

134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/

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

R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, 

R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS44 (2003 composition), and THR-03. 

(2) For new positive displacement 

chillers, we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, except as otherwise 

allowed under a narrowed use limit, as 

of January 1, 2024 

• FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/

70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ 

42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, 

R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 

composition), SP34E, and THR-03. 

(3) For new centrifugal chillers, we 

are proposing to list as acceptable, 

subject to narrowed use limits, as of 

January 1, 2024 

• HFC-134a for military marine 

vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for 

human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment 

(4) For new positive displacement 

chillers, we are proposing to list as 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits, as of January 1, 2024 

• HFC-134a for military marine 

vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for 

human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment 

(5) For new cold storage warehouses, 

we are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

as of January 1, 2023 

• HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, 

R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, 

R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 

composition). 

(6) For new retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment), we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable, as of 

January 1, 2021 

• HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/ 

600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, 

R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, 

R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). 

(7) For new household refrigerators 

and freezers, we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021 

• FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, 

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

42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, 

R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), 

SP34E, and THR-03. 

(8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) highpressure two-component spray foam, we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable for 

all uses, except military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications, as of 

January 1, 2020; as acceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits, for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related 

applications, as of January 1, 2020; and 

as unacceptable for military or spaceand aeronautics-related applications as 

of January 1, 2025 

• HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel 

TI.3

(9) For rigid PU low-pressure twocomponent spray foam, we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable for all 

uses, except military or spaceaeronautics-related applications, as of 

January 1, 2021; as acceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits, for military or 

space- aeronautics-related applications, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22814 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured on or 

before January 1, 2021, may be used after that date. 

5Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured on or 

before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. 

6Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured on or 

before January 1, 2017, may be used after that date. 

7Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured on or 

before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. 

as of January 1, 2021; and as 

unacceptable for military or spaceaeronautics-related applications as of 

January 1, 2025 

• HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel 

TI.4

(10) For rigid PU one-component 

foam sealants, we are proposing to list 

as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020 

• HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel 

TI.5

(11) For all foam blowing end-uses 

except for rigid PU spray foam, we are 

proposing for all HFCs and HFC blends 

previously listed as unacceptable for 

space- aeronautics-related applications 

as of January 1, 2022 that 

• These HFCs and HFC blends would 

be unacceptable for space- aeronauticsrelated applications as of January 1, 

2025. 

(12) For flexible PU foam 

applications, we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, as of 30 days after 

publication of a final rule 

• Methylene chloride. 

(13) For integral skin PU foam 

applications, we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, as of January 1, 2017 

• Methylene chloride.6

(14) For polyolefin foam applications, 

we are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

as of January 1, 2020 

• Methylene chloride.7

(15) For fire suppression total 

flooding uses, we are proposing to list 

as unacceptable, as of one year after 

publication of a final rule 

• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (C3F8 and 

C4F10). 

4. Other Changes 

(1) For all foam blowing end-uses, we 

are proposing to prohibit 

• Use of closed cell foam products 

and products that contain closed cell 

foam manufactured with an 

unacceptable foam blowing agent on or 

after the later of (1) one year after 

publication of a final rule or (2) the date 

of the unacceptability listing. 

(2) For fire suppression and explosion 

protection total flooding end-use, we are 

proposing to clarify the listing for 

Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X®), which is 

currently listed as both ‘‘acceptable’’ 

and ‘‘acceptable subject to use 

conditions,’’ by removing the listing as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ 

as of 30 days after publication of a final 

rule. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Potential entities that may be affected 

by this proposed rule include: 

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

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities 

Construction ..... 238210 Alarm System (E.G., Fire, Burglar), Electric, Installation Only. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manufacturing ... 332919 Nozzles, Firefighting, Manufacturing. 

Industry ............. 333415 Manufacturers of Refrigerators, Freezers, and Other Refrigerating or Freezing Equipment, Electric or Other 

(NESOI); Heat Pumps Not Elsewhere Specified or Included; and Parts Thereof. 

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

Manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ... 334290 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems Manufacturing. 

Industry ............. 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing. 

Industry ............. 336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing. 

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

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

Industry ............. 3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ... 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing. 

Manufacturing ... 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing. 

Industry ............. 336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing. 

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

Manufacturing ... 339999 Fire Extinguishers, Portable, Manufacturing. 

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

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

Retail ................ 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers. 

Retail ................ 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-Type. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22815 

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

CODE—Continued 

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities 

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. 

Services ............ 81119 Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance. 

Services ............ 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance. 

Services ............ 922160 Fire Protection. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

entity is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 82. If you have questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

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: 

AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene 

Association 

AC—Air Conditioning 

ACGIH—American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

ACH—Changes Per Hour 

ASRAC—Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 

AEGL—Acute Emergency Guideline Limits 

AHRI—Air Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute 

AIRAH—Australian Institute of Refrigeration, 

Air conditioning and Heating 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

APU—Auxiliary Power Unit 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

BTU—British Thermal Units 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAP—Climate Action Plan 

CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Identification Number 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4—Methane 

CMAQ—Community Multiscale Air Quality 

CO2—Carbon Dioxide 

CO2eq—Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

CUAC—Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner 

CUHP—Commercial Unitary Heat Pump 

DOE—United States Department of Energy 

DX—Direct Expansion 

EEAP—Environmental Effects Assessment 

Panel 

EIA—Environmental Investigation Agency 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FCA—Fiat Chrysler Automobiles 

FMEA—Failure Mode and Effects Analysis 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FR—Federal Register 

FTA—Fault Tree Analysis 

GHG—Greenhouse Gas 

GtCO2eq—Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide 

Equivalent 

GWP—Global Warming Potential 

GVWR—Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

HBFC—Hydrobromofluorocarbon 

HC—Hydrocarbon 

HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HD—Heavy-Duty 

HD GHG—Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas 

HF—Hydrogen Fluoride 

HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon 

HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin 

HTOC—Halons Technical Options 

Committee 

ICAO— International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

ICF—ICF International, Inc. 

IGSD—Institute for Governance and 

Sustainable Development 

IEC—International Electrochemical 

Commission 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IPR—Industrial Process Refrigeration 

kPa—Kilopascal 

LD—Light-Duty 

LD GHG—Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas 

LFL—Lower Flammability Limit 

LOAEL—Lowest Observed Adverse Effect 

Level 

LPG—Liquified Petroleum Gas 

MAC Directive—Directive on Mobile Air 

Conditioning 

MDPV—Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle 

MIR—Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

MMTCO2eq—Million Metric Tons of Carbon 

Dioxide Equivalent 

MSDS—Material Safety Data Sheet 

MVAC—Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

MY—Model Year 

N2O—Nitrous Oxide 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NADA—National Automobile Dealers 

Association 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NESHAP—National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFPA—National Fire Protection Association 

NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

NIK—Not-In-Kind 

NIOSH—United States National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NSF—National Sanitation Foundation 

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 

PMS—Pantone Matching System 

ppb—Parts Per Billion 

PPE—Personal Protective Equipment 

ppm—Parts Per Million 

PSM—Process Safety Management 

PTAC—Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

PTHP—Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps 

PU—Polyurethane 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

REL—Recommended Exposure Limit 

RfC—Reference Concentration 

RMP—Risk Management Plan 

RSES—Refrigeration Service Engineers 

Society 

RTOC—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 

Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee 

SARPS—Standards and Recommended 

Practices 

SIP—State Implementation Plan 

SAE ICCC—SAE International’s Interior 

Climate Control Committee 

SAP—Scientific Assessment Panel 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22816 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

8As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ‘‘interstate 

commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation 

of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any 

product in more than one state, territory, possession 

or District of Columbia. The entry points for which 

a product is introduced into interstate commerce 

are the release of a product from the facility in 

which the product was manufactured, the entry into 

a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer 

releases the product for sale or distribution, and at 

the site of United States Customs clearance. 

9As 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. 

10The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ 

referring to submissions for which EPA has not 

reached a determination, under this provision. 

11As 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. 

SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

SRES—Special Report on Emissions 

Scenarios 

STEL—Short-term Exposure Limit 

SUV—Sport Utility Vehicles 

TEAP—Technical and Economic Assessment 

Panel 

TFA—Trifluoroacetic Acid 

TLV—Threshold Limit Value 

TWA—Time Weighted Average 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UNEP—United Nations Environmental 

Programme 

VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds 

WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure 

Limit 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

and authority for the SNAP program? 

CAA section 612 requires EPA to 

develop a program for evaluating 

alternatives to 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 

(CFC), halon, carbon tetrachloride, 

methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, 

hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and 

chlorobromomethane) or class II 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (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/

substitutes-sector 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 

include the following: Refrigeration and 

AC; 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 listed above 

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,8 it 

may also apply to importers, 

formulators, equipment manufacturers, 

or end users 9 when they are responsible 

for introducing a substitute into 

interstate 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.10 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 

sector end-uses 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 

them to the list of unacceptable 

substitutes.11

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22817 

12 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA 

established narrowed use limits for certain 

substitutes over a limited period of time for specific 

MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that 

other acceptable alternatives would not be available 

for those specific applications within broader enduses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to 

become available over time, e.g., after military 

qualification testing for foam blowing agents in 

military applications or after development of 

improved servicing infrastructure in a destination 

country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export. 

13 In addition to acceptable commercially 

available alternatives, the SNAP program may 

consider potentially available alternatives. 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) 

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 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 CAA 

section 612 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 generally requires a user of 

a substitute subject to narrowed use 

limits to demonstrate that no other 

acceptable substitutes are available for 

their specific application.12 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 CAA section 612 and EPA’s 

SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 

The section 612 mandate for EPA to 

prohibit the use of a substitute that may 

present risk to human health or the 

environment where a lower risk 

alternative is available or potentially 

available 13 provides EPA with the 

authority to change the listing status of 

a particular substitute if such a change 

is justified by new information or 

changed circumstance. The Agency 

publishes its SNAP program decisions 

in the Federal Register. EPA uses 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

place any alternative on the list of 

prohibited substitutes, to list a 

substitute as acceptable only subject to 

use conditions or narrowed use limits, 

or to remove a substitute from either the 

list of prohibited or acceptable 

substitutes. 

In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of 

acceptability’’ to notify the public of 

substitutes that are deemed acceptable 

with no restrictions. As described in the 

preamble to the rule initially 

implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 

13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not 

believe that rulemaking procedures are 

necessary to list substitutes that are 

acceptable without restrictions because 

such listings neither impose any 

sanction nor prevent anyone from using 

a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

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

provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed are binding under 

other regulatory programs (e.g., worker 

protection regulations promulgated by 

the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 

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 (ODP) 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 

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 one 

substitute for each end-use, and does 

not intend to restrict substitutes on the 

market unless a substitute has been 

proposed or is being used that is clearly 

more harmful to human health or the 

environment than other 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, subject 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 ODP 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., 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. 

EPA’s consideration of cost in listing 

decisions is limited to evaluating the 

cost of the substitute under review 

pursuant to section 82.180(a)(7)(vii). 

This is distinct from consideration of 

costs associated with the use of other 

alternatives to which the substitute is 

being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 

374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 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) . . . .’’). 

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 

substitutes, the SNAP criteria continue 

to be informed by our current overall 

understanding of environmental and 

human health impacts and our 

experience with and current knowledge 

about alternatives. 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 CAA section 612(e) for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22819 

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 (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18, 

1994). In determining whether to add or 

remove a substance from the SNAP lists, 

we consider whether there are other 

alternatives 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 that may not have been 

available at the time of our original 

listing decision, including information 

on substitutes that were not included in 

our comparative review at the time of 

our initial listing decision 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 

alternatives 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 the 

comparative risk framework it uses to 

determine whether there are other 

alternatives that pose significantly lower 

risk than the substitute under review. 

EPA makes decisions based on the 

particular end-use where a substitute is 

to be used. EPA has, in many cases, 

found certain substitutes acceptable 

only for limited end-uses or subject to 

use restrictions. 

It has now been over twenty years 

since the initial SNAP rule was 

promulgated. When the SNAP program 

began, the number of substitutes 

available for consideration was, for 

many end-uses, somewhat limited. 

Thus, 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 EPA listed class II ODS (i.e., 

HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that 

they too would be phased out and, at 

best, could offer 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 20 

rules and 30 notices that generally 

expand the menu of options for the 

various SNAP sectors and end-uses. 

Thus, comparisons today apply to a 

broader range of alternatives—both 

chemical and non-chemical—than at the 

inception of the SNAP program. 

Industry experience with these 

substitutes has also grown during the 

history of the program. 

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 

proposed rule includes comparative 

assessments that consider our evolving 

understanding of a variety of factors. For 

example, 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 of 

information has expanded and the 

quality has improved. 

To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing 

management of the SNAP program 

considers new information, including 

new substitutes, 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. On January 

26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant 

blend known by the trade name MT-31 

as unacceptable for all refrigeration and 

AC end-uses for which EPA had 

previously listed this blend as an 

acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 

3, 1997). EPA based this decision on 

new information about the toxicity of 

one of the chemicals in the blend. 

Another example of EPA revising a 

listing determination occurred in 2007, 

when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC142b as unacceptable for use in the foam 

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

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 alternatives that 

posed lower overall risk at the time of 

EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a 

path forward for some sectors and enduses at a time when the number of 

substitutes was far more limited. In light 

of the expanded availability of other 

alternatives 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. 

In a final rule published on July 20, 

2015 (80 FR 42870), various HFCs and 

HFC-containing blends that were 

previously listed as acceptable under 

the SNAP program were listed as 

unacceptable in various end-uses in the 

aerosols, foam blowing, and 

refrigeration and AC sectors where there 

are other alternatives that pose lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment for specific uses. The July 

2015 rule also changed the status from 

acceptable to unacceptable for certain 

HCFCs being phased out of production 

under the Montreal Protocol and CAA 

section 605(a). Per the guiding 

principles of the SNAP program, the 

July 2015 rule did not specify that any 

HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across 

all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all 

cases, EPA considered the intersection 

between the specific substitute and the 

particular end-use and the availability 

of substitutes for those particular enduses when making its determinations. 

H. Where can I get additional 

information about the SNAP program? 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

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

For more information on the Agency’s 

process for administering the SNAP 

program or criteria for evaluation of 

substitutes, refer to the 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

14EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean 

Air Act. December, 2009. This document is 

accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/

Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. 

15 IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding 

the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: 

Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New York. 

This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.

ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf. 

16HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a 

byproduct during the production of HCFC-22 and 

other chemicals. 

17UNEP, 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. 

18Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific 

and Papers. 2013. 

19Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: 

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/ 

NIST Conference 2012. This document is accessible 

at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/

2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf. 

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

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

contribution of projected HFC emissions to future 

climate forcing.’’ Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. 

21UNEP, 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. 

22 Ibid. 

23 Ibid. 

24 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. This document 

is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ 

. 

25NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of 

Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 

(Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted 

October 6, 2015. 

26EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify 

the status under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program, of certain high-GWP chemicals in 

various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015. 

III. What actions and information 

related to greenhouse gases have 

bearing on this proposed action? 

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 an 

endangerment finding determining that, 

for purposes of CAA section 202(a), the 

current and projected concentrations of 

the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases 

in the atmosphere—CO2, methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—threaten the 

public health and welfare of current and 

future generations.14

Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are 

potent GHGs.15 Although they represent 

a small fraction of the current total 

volume of GHG emissions, their 

warming impact is very strong. While 

GHGs such as CO2 and CH4 are 

unintentional byproducts from 

industrial activities and mobile source 

emissions, HFCs are intentionally 

produced chemicals.16 The most 

commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC134a is 1,430 times more damaging to 

the climate system than CO2. Because of 

their role in replacing ODS, both in the 

United States and globally, and because 

of the increasing use of refrigeration and 

AC, 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 percent annually.17 At 

that rate, emissions are projected to 

double by 2020 and triple by 2030.18

HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the 

atmosphere. The atmospheric 

concentration of HFC-134a, the most 

abundant HFC, has increased by about 

10 percent per year from 2006 to 2012, 

and the concentrations of HFC-143a and 

HFC-125 have risen over 13 percent and 

16 percent per year from 2007–2011, 

respectively.19

Annual global emissions of HFCs are 

projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 

gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq) in 

2050,20 which is comparable to the drop 

in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 

8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 and 2010.21

By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the 

atmosphere is projected to increase 

radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m¥2. 

This increase may be as much as onefifth to one-quarter of the expected 

increase in radiative forcing due to the 

buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report on 

Emissions Scenarios (SRES).22 To 

appreciate the significance of the effect 

of projected HFC emissions within the 

context of all GHGs, HFCs would be 

equivalent to five to 12 percent of the 

CO2 emissions in 2050 based on the 

IPCC’s highest CO2 emissions scenario 

and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of 

CO2 emissions based on the IPCC’s 

lowest CO2 emissions pathway.23 24

Additional information concerning the 

peer-reviewed scientific literature and 

emission scenarios is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0663). Today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) includes 

status change proposals for certain HFCs 

or HFC blends in specific refrigeration 

and AC end-uses and in rigid 

polyurethane spray foam. 

PFCs are potent GHGs and have very 

long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs are 

produced as a byproduct of various 

industrial processes associated with 

aluminum production and the 

manufacturing of semiconductors, then 

captured for intentional use or 

manufactured for use in various 

industrial applications. PFCs have had 

limited use in the eight sectors regulated 

under SNAP. This action includes status 

change proposals for certain PFCs in fire 

suppression total flooding and 

streaming uses. 

IV. What petitions has EPA received 

requesting a change in listing status for 

HFCs? 

A. Summary of Petitions 

EPA recently received two petitions 

requesting EPA to modify certain 

acceptability listings of high-GWP 

substances in various end-uses. The 

petitions were both submitted on 

October 6, 2015. The first was submitted 

by the Natural Resource Defense 

Council (NRDC) and the Institute for 

Governance and Sustainable 

Development (IGSD) and the second by 

the Environmental Investigation Agency 

(EIA).25 26 Today’s proposal is relevant 

to certain aspects of these petitions. 

The NRDC and IGSD petition requests 

that EPA change the listing status of 

certain high-GWP chemicals they 

believe are used most frequently in the 

United States in various end-uses in the 

refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and 

fire suppression and explosion 

protection sectors. The EIA petition 

requests that EPA list additional highGWP HFCs as unacceptable or 

acceptable, subject to use restrictions, in 

a number of end-uses in the 

refrigeration and AC, and fire 

suppression and explosion protection 

sectors. EIA requests that the schedule 

for changing the status of the substances 

listed in their petition be based on a 

three tiered approach: (1) January 1, 

2017, or one year following the passage 

of a final rule for SF6, HFC-23, and HFC23 blends R-508A and R-508B; (2) 

January 1, 2019, for all chemicals with 

a GWP greater than 3,000 (e.g., includes 

HFC-236fa, HFC-227ea, R-507A, and R404A) in all remaining stationary 

refrigeration end-uses; and (3) January 1, 

2022, for all remaining substitutes with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22821 

GWPs higher than 1,000, including 

HFC-134a, R-410A. In support of their 

petitions, the petitioners identified 

other alternatives they claimed are 

available for use in the specified enduses. NRDC and IGSD stated that these 

other alternatives ‘‘possess similar 

thermodynamic characteristics’’ and 

‘‘can achieve equal or greater energy 

efficiency in hardware design’’ 

compared to the substances they request 

the Agency list as unacceptable. The 

petitions are available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. While EPA has not 

found these petitions complete at this 

time, today’s proposal addresses certain 

aspects of the petitions as described in 

section I.A and further discussed below. 

Parts of two other previously 

submitted SNAP petitions that EPA 

found to be incomplete are also relevant 

to this rulemaking. In a petition EIA 

submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, 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 HFC134a blends from the list of acceptable 

substitutes for any ozone depleting 

substance in any non-essential uses 

under EPA’s SNAP program.’’ 

Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD 

filed a petition on April 27, 2012, 

requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a 

from the list of acceptable substitutes in 

household refrigerators and freezers, 

and stand-alone retail food refrigerators 

and freezers, among other things. On 

August 7, 2013, EPA found both 

petitions to be incomplete. 

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 climate-friendly 

chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of 

the most harmful chemical alternatives. 

The CAP further states: ‘‘to reduce 

emissions of HFCs, the United States 

can and will lead both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions.’’ This proposed rule is 

also consistent with that call for 

leadership through domestic actions. As 

regards international leadership, for the 

past six 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 are estimated 

to yield significant reductions in 

emissions of over 90 GtCO2eq through 

2050. 

This action also addresses certain 

aspects of the various petitions referred 

to above in section IV.A. While the two 

recent petitions have not been found 

complete and earlier petitions have been 

found incomplete, EPA possesses 

sufficient information to propose action 

on some of the end-uses covered by the 

petitions. EPA’s action is responsive to 

certain aspects of the petitions that 

relate to the refrigeration and AC, foam 

blowing, and fire suppression and 

explosion protection sectors; EPA is 

proposing to change the listing from 

acceptable to unacceptable for: 

• HFC-134a in new centrifugal 

chillers, new positive displacement 

chillers, new household refrigerators 

and freezers, and rigid PU spray foam; 

• R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R507A in new centrifugal chillers, new 

positive displacement chillers, new 

household refrigerators and freezers, 

and new cold storage warehouses; 

• R-407A in new cold storage 

warehouses; 

• R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-424A, and R-434A in new centrifugal 

chillers and new positive displacement 

chillers; 

• HFC-227ea in new cold storage 

warehouses, new centrifugal chillers, 

and new positive displacement chillers; 

• HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC227ea in rigid PU spray foam; 

• HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new 

centrifugal chillers and new positive 

displacement chillers; 

• PFCs (i.e., C3F8 and C4F10,) for total 

flooding applications; and 

• a number of refrigerant blends with 

higher GWPs in certain new 

refrigeration and AC equipment. 

EPA is also requesting comment and 

updated information on total flooding 

uses of SF6 HFC-23, and HFC-125, and 

on both total flooding and streaming 

uses of HFC-227ea. 

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. As noted above, some of 

the key strengths of the SNAP program, 

such as its substance and end-use 

specific consideration, its multi-criteria 

basis for action, and its petition process, 

tend to militate against measures some 

have advocated could provide more 

certainty, such as setting specific 

numerical criteria for environmental 

evaluations (e.g., all compounds with 

GWP greater than 150). That said, we 

believe that the action we are taking 

today 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 SNAPregulated industrial sectors. 

V. How does EPA regulate substitute 

refrigerants under CAA section 608? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

concerning venting, release, or disposal 

of refrigerants and refrigerant 

substitutes under CAA section 608? 

The statutory requirements 

concerning venting, release, or disposal 

of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes 

are under CAA section 608, and EPA’s 

authority to promulgate the regulatory 

revisions in this action is based in part 

on CAA section 608. Section 608 of the 

Act as amended, titled National 

Recycling and Emission Reduction 

Program, requires, among other things, 

that EPA establish regulations governing 

the use and disposal of ODS used as 

refrigerants, such as certain CFCs and 

HCFCs, during the service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration (IPR). Section 

608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for 

any person, in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance (or IPR), to 

knowingly vent, or otherwise knowingly 

release or dispose of, any class I or class 

II substance used as a refrigerant in that 

appliance (or IPR) in a manner which 

permits the ODS to enter the 

environment. 

Section 608(c)(1) further exempts 

from this self-effectuating prohibition de 

minimis releases associated with good 

faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose of such a substance. 

EPA, as set forth in its regulations, 

interprets releases to meet the criteria 

for exempted de minimis releases if they 

occur when the recycling and recovery 

requirements of specified regulations 

promulgated under sections 608 and 

609 are followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2). 

Section 608(c)(2) extends the 

prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to 

knowingly venting or otherwise 

knowingly releasing or disposing of any 

refrigerant substitute for class I or class 

II substances by any person 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances or IPR. This 

prohibition applies to any substitute 

unless the Administrator determines 

that such venting, releasing, or 

disposing does not pose a threat to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22822 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

environment. Thus, section 608(c) 

provides EPA authority to promulgate 

regulations to interpret, implement, and 

enforce this prohibition on venting, 

releasing, or disposing of class I or class 

II substances and their refrigerant 

substitutes, which we refer to as the 

‘‘venting prohibition’’ in this action. 

EPA’s authority under section 608(c) 

includes authority to implement section 

608(c)(2) by exempting certain 

substitutes for class I or class II 

substances from the venting prohibition 

when the Administrator determines that 

such venting, release, or disposal does 

not pose a threat to the environment. 

B. What are EPA’s regulations 

concerning venting, releasing, or 

disposal of refrigerant substitutes? 

Regulations promulgated under CAA 

section 608, published on May 14, 1993 

(58 FR 28660), established a recycling 

program for ozone-depleting refrigerants 

recovered during the servicing and 

maintenance of refrigeration and AC 

appliances. In the same 1993 rule, EPA 

also promulgated regulations 

implementing the section 608(c) 

prohibition on knowingly venting, 

releasing, or disposing of class I or class 

II controlled substances. These 

regulations were designed to 

substantially reduce the use and 

emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants. 

EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 

2004 (69 FR 11946) and a second rule 

on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) 

clarifying how the venting prohibition 

in section 608(c) applies to substitutes 

for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., 

HFCs and PFCs) during the 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

of appliances. These regulations are 

codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. 

In relevant part, they provide that no 

person maintaining, servicing, repairing, 

or disposing of appliances may 

knowingly vent or otherwise release 

into the environment any refrigerant or 

substitute from such appliances, with 

the exception of the certain specified 

substitutes in the specified end-uses, as 

provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a). 

As explained in an earlier EPA 

rulemaking concerning refrigerant 

substitutes, EPA has not promulgated 

regulations requiring certification of 

refrigerant recycling/recovery 

equipment intended for use with 

substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 

13, 2005). The Agency has recently 

proposed, but not yet finalized, 

regulations to address certification of 

such equipment used to recover and/or 

recycle refrigerants that are not exempt 

from the venting prohibition (80 FR 

69458; November 9, 2015). However, as 

EPA has noted, the lack of a current 

regulatory provision should not be 

considered as an exemption from the 

venting prohibition for substitutes that 

are not expressly exempted in 

§ 82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478). EPA 

has also noted that, in accordance with 

section 608(c) of the Act, the regulatory 

prohibition at § 82.154(a) reflects the 

statutory references to de minimis 

releases of substitutes as they pertain to 

good faith attempts to recover and 

recycle or safely dispose of nonexempted substitutes but does not 

provide clear guidance about what 

constitutes such a ‘‘good faith attempt’’ 

for substitutes. (80 FR 69470). 

On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA 

exempted from the venting prohibition 

three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the specified end-uses: Isobutane and R441A, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and propane as a refrigerant substitute 

in retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only). Similarly, on 

April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), EPA 

exempted from the venting prohibition 

four HC refrigerant substitutes listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the specified end-uses: Isobutane and R441A, in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only); 

propane in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers; ethane in very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment 

and equipment for non-mechanical heat 

transfer; R-441A, propane, and 

isobutane in vending machines; and 

propane and R-441A in self-contained 

room air conditioners for residential and 

light commercial AC and heat pumps. 

Those regulatory exemptions do not 

apply to blends of HCs with other 

refrigerants or containing any amount of 

any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC. 

In those actions, EPA determined that 

for the purposes of CAA section 

608(c)(2), the venting, release, or 

disposal of such HC refrigerant 

substitutes in the specified end-uses 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment, considering both the 

inherent characteristics of these 

substances and the limited quantities 

used in the relevant applications. EPA 

further concluded that other authorities, 

controls, or practices that apply to such 

refrigerant substitutes help to mitigate 

environmental risk from the release of 

those HC refrigerant substitutes. 

C. What did EPA recently propose 

regarding management of refrigerant 

substitutes under CAA section 608? 

In addition to the prohibition on 

knowingly releasing ozone-depleting 

and substitute refrigerants during the 

maintenance, service, repair, and 

disposal of appliances, the existing 

regulations established under CAA 

section 608 require that persons 

servicing or disposing of airconditioning and refrigeration 

equipment observe certain service 

practices that reduce emissions of 

ozone-depleting refrigerant. The current 

regulatory provisions only apply to 

ozone-depleting refrigerants and 

appliances containing ozone-depleting 

refrigerants. The current requirements 

include: Requiring that technicians be 

certified to work on appliances; 

restricting the sale of refrigerant to 

certified technicians; specifying the 

proper evacuation levels before opening 

up an appliance; requiring the use of 

certified refrigerant recovery and/or 

recycling equipment; requiring the 

maintenance and repair of appliances 

that meet certain size and leak rate 

thresholds; requiring that refrigerants be 

removed from appliances prior to 

disposal; requiring that air-conditioning 

and refrigeration equipment be provided 

with a servicing aperture or process stub 

to facilitate refrigerant recovery; 

requiring that refrigerant reclaimers be 

certified in order to reclaim and sell 

used refrigerant; and establishing 

standards for technician certification 

programs, recovery equipment, and 

quality of reclaimed refrigerant. 

On November 9, 2015 (80 FR 69457), 

EPA proposed to update these existing 

requirements found in 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F that currently apply to ozonedepleting refrigerants and then to 

generally extend those requirements, as 

appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting 

substitute refrigerants, including but not 

limited to HFCs and PFCs. However, as 

proposed, the rule requirements would 

not extend to substitute refrigerants that 

are exempt from the venting 

prohibition. This proposed rule would 

also streamline the regulations at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart F to improve 

clarity. For more information on this 

proposed rule, see docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0453. 

VI. What is EPA proposing in this 

action? 

EPA is proposing to list certain newly 

submitted alternatives as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, and other 

newly submitted alternatives as 

unacceptable. EPA is also proposing to 

modify the listings from acceptable to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22823 

27EPA, 2016. Draft Climate Benefits of the SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule. February, 2016. 

28Using a 7% discount rate, total annualized 

compliance costs across the roughly 100 affected 

businesses are estimated to range from $59.2 

million–$71.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, 

total annualized compliance costs are estimated to 

range from $58.8 million–$70.6 million. In terms of 

the percentage of the estimated total annualized 

costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning 

is about 97–98%, foams is about 2–3% and fire 

suppression is about 0%. 

29 ICF, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. 

30 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 

Suppression. 

31 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 

Suppression. 

acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits, or to unacceptable for certain 

alternatives in various end-uses in the 

refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and 

fire suppression and explosion 

protection sectors. In each instance 

where EPA is proposing to list a newly 

submitted substitute as unacceptable or 

is changing the status of a substitute 

from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA 

has determined that there are other 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment. 

EPA is also proposing that the existing 

listing decisions for foam blowing 

agents apply to closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foam. See section VI.C.3 for 

the details of this proposal. The 

emissions that would be avoided from 

the proposed changes of status in this 

action are estimated to be approximately 

5.5 to 6.6 MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 

approximately 9.8 to 11.3 MMTCO2eq in 

2030.27

In each listing decision, EPA is 

considering the intersection between the 

specific alternative and the particular 

end-use, per the guiding principles 

stated above. This action does not 

propose that any specific alternative is 

acceptable or unacceptable across all 

sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not 

proposing that, for any specific sector, 

the only acceptable substitutes are nonfluorinated. EPA recognizes that both 

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

may pose lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment, depending 

on the particular use. 

Change of Listing Status 

In determining whether to modify the 

previous listing decisions for substitutes 

based on whether other alternatives are 

available that pose lower risk to human 

health and the environment, we 

considered, among other things: 

Scientific findings, information 

provided by the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 

that supports the Montreal Protocol, 

journal articles, submissions to the 

SNAP program, the regulations and 

supporting dockets for other EPA 

rulemakings, presentations and reports 

presented at domestic and international 

conferences, and materials from trade 

associations and professional 

organizations. The materials on which 

we have relied may be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0663). Key references are 

highlighted in section VIII of today’s 

notice. 

Change of Status Dates 

Here, as in the July 20, 2015, final 

rule, the proposed change of status dates 

are based upon EPA’s understanding of 

the availability of alternatives, 

considering factors such as commercial 

availability and supply of alternatives, 

time required to work through technical 

challenges with using alternatives, and 

time required to meet other federal 

regulatory requirements with redesigned 

equipment or formulations. 

Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

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. EPA requires information 

on cost and availability of substitutes as 

part of SNAP submissions in order to 

judge how widely a substitute might be 

used, and therefore, what its potential 

environmental and health effects might 

be. The SNAP criteria do not identify 

other cost considerations and thus we 

have not historically used cost 

information independent of 

environmental and health effects to 

determine the acceptability of 

substitutes under review—that is, we 

have never determined a substitute 

under review to be unacceptable or 

acceptable on the basis of its cost. When 

considering a change of status for 

substitutes already listed as acceptable, 

the SNAP program has not considered 

the costs of transition away from HFCs, 

HFC blends, PFCs, and other 

alternatives affected by the changes of 

status as part of determining the status 

of the substitute or the availability of 

other alternatives for the same uses. 

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. 

Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the 

costs of the proposed changes of status 

in this action in order to provide 

information to the public and to meet 

various statutory and executive order 

requirements. We have estimated 

costs 28 for applicable NAICS codes in a 

document titled, ‘‘Preliminary Cost 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 

Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives 

used in Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 

Suppression.’’ 29 Total annualized 

compliance costs across affected small 

businesses are estimated at 

approximately $11.8–$14.4 million at a 

7% discount rate, or $11.5–$14.0 

million at a 3% discount rate. The 

screening analysis finds that the 

rulemaking can be presumed to have no 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE) for the following reasons: 

roughly 89 small businesses could be 

subject to the rulemaking, although 

roughly 76% of small businesses subject 

to this rulemaking would be expected to 

incur compliance costs that are 

estimated to be less than one percent of 

annual sales; and this analysis indicates 

that up to 21 of the 89 affected small 

businesses—or roughly 24%—could 

incur costs in excess of 1% of annual 

sales, and that up to 12 small businesses 

could incur costs in excess of three 

percent of annual sales. 

In addition, we have analyzed costs 

and impacts on small businesses in a 

document titled, ‘‘Economic Impact 

Screening Analysis for Regulatory 

Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration 

and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 

Suppression.’’ 30 These analyses are 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0663). Based upon these analyses, EPA 

does not expect this proposed rule to 

have major economic impacts (greater 

than $100 million per year) or to have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, if it is 

finalized as proposed. In addition, we 

have analyzed costs and impacts on 

small businesses in a document titled, 

‘‘Economic Impact Screening Analysis 

for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives used 

in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, 

Foams, and Fire Suppression.31 Based 

upon these analyses, EPA does not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

32EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

expect this proposed rule to have major 

economic impacts (greater than $100 

million per year) or to have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, if it is finalized as proposed. As 

noted, EPA’s consideration of cost in 

listing decisions is limited to evaluating 

the cost of the substitute under review 

pursuant to § 82.180(a)(7)(vii). However, 

for purposes of ensuring that the cost 

analysis EPA prepared for purposes of 

providing information to the public and 

complying with statutory and executive 

order requirements is as accurate as 

possible, EPA requests comment on the 

preliminary cost analysis and the 

economic impact screening analysis for 

purposes of updating the analysis. 

These analyses are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0663). 

The refrigeration and air conditioning 

and fire suppression end-uses that 

would be affected by this proposed rule 

were not affected by the changes of 

status promulgated in the July 20, 2015, 

final rule. For the foams sector, the rigid 

PU spray foam end-use was not affected 

by the changes of status in the July 20, 

2015, final rule. For some other foam 

end uses, we changed the status in the 

July 20, 2015, final rule with respect to 

use of the blowing agent and are now 

proposing to change the status with 

respect to use of closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foam that are manufactured 

or imported using these foam-blowing 

agents. 

Narrowed Use Limits 

EPA notes that it may be reasonable 

for several of the end-uses to be broken 

down further. Consistent with previous 

practice and as EPA is proposing in 

certain instances in this proposal, EPA 

could consider adopting narrowed use 

limits. We could also consider adopting 

temporary narrowed use limits for a 

specific application within an end-use if 

the Agency determined that substitutes 

would be available for all but that 

specific application as of a particular 

date. In that case, for applications in 

that end-use not covered by the 

narrowed use limit, the proposed rule 

would list the substitute as 

unacceptable as of that date. For the 

specific application at issue, the 

proposed rule could contain both a 

temporary narrowed use limit with an 

expiration date and a listing as 

unacceptable upon the expiration of the 

narrowed use limit. Any end user 

within the covered application would 

need to comply with the requirement to 

analyze and document that there are no 

other alternatives that are technically 

feasible for their specific end-use in 

order to use the substitute identified in 

the narrowed use limit. 

Requests for Comment 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal, including proposed 

decisions to list additional substitutes as 

acceptable in certain end uses, to list 

new substitutes as unacceptable in 

certain end uses and to change the 

listing status of certain substitutes from 

acceptable to unacceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits or unacceptable, 

and the dates when the change of status 

would apply to users of these 

substitutes. EPA is particularly 

interested in information concerning 

whether the supply of substitutes is 

sufficient to meet the dates proposed in 

this action or whether there are 

technical challenges in meeting a 

proposed change of status date. EPA is 

also interested in whether EPA should 

adopt a temporary narrowed use limit 

for a specific application of an end-use 

in the final rule. In such a case, the 

commenter should explain why other 

alternatives would not be available for 

the specific application of that end-use 

and for what period of time. EPA is also 

requesting comments on the 

determination that the SNAP listing 

decisions for foam blowing agents 

would apply to closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foam that are manufactured 

or imported after one year after 

publication of a final rule. In addition, 

EPA is requesting comments on its 

proposed decision regarding the venting 

prohibition under section 608. More 

specific requests for comment are 

included with the discussion of each of 

the proposed decisions. 

A. Retail Food Refrigeration and 

Stationary AC 

1. Proposed Listing of Propane as 

Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, 

for Commercial Ice Machines, Water 

Coolers, and Very Low Temperature 

Refrigeration Equipment 

EPA is proposing to list propane (R290) as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as a refrigerant in new selfcontained commercial ice machines, in 

new water coolers, and in new very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

The proposed use conditions include 

conditions requiring conformity with 

industry standards, limits on charge 

size, and requirements for warnings and 

markings on equipment. The use 

conditions are detailed below in section 

VI.A.1.c, ‘‘What are the proposed use 

conditions?’’ 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

Commercial ice machines are used in 

commercial establishments to produce 

ice for consumer use, such as in hotels, 

restaurants, and convenience stores. 

Many commercial ice machines are selfcontained units, while some have the 

condenser separated from the portion of 

the machine making the ice and have 

refrigerant lines running between the 

two. The proposed listing applies only 

to self-contained commercial ice 

machines. 

Water coolers are self-contained units 

providing chilled water for drinking. 

They may or may not feature detachable 

containers of water. 

Very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment is intended to maintain 

temperatures considerably lower than 

for refrigeration of food—generally, ¥80 

°C (¥170 °F) or lower. In some cases, 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment may use a refrigeration 

system with two refrigerant loops 

containing different refrigerants or with 

a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration 

loop coupled with an alternative 

refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling 

cycle). 

b. How does propane compare to other 

refrigerants for these end-uses with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks (e.g., 

flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 32 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

i. Environmental Impacts 

The ODP is the ratio of the impact on 

stratospheric ozone of a substance 

compared to the impact of an identical 

mass of CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of CFC11 is defined to be one. Other ODS have 

ODPs that range from 0.01 to 10.0. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22825 

33We assume that substitutes containing no 

chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. 

34Under EPA’s phaseout regulations, virgin 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing 

HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to service 

existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, 

HCFC-142b and blends containing HCFC-22 or 

HCFC-142b may not be used to manufacture new 

pre-charged appliances or appliance components or 

to charge new appliances assembled onsite. 

35Propane’s ODP is also lower than the ODP of 

the ozone depleting substances historically used in 

these end-uses: CFC-12 (ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP 

= 0.055); R-13B1 (ODP = 10) and R-502 (ODP = 

0.334). 

36Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this 

document are 100-year integrated time horizon 

values taken from IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

37The GWPs of the ozone-depleting substances 

historically used in these end-uses are: CFC-12 

(GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/ 

halon 1301 (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 

4,660). 

38RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical 

Continued 

Propane has an ODP of zero.33 The 

most commonly used substitutes in the 

commercial ice machine, water cooler, 

and very low temperature refrigeration 

end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., 

R-404A and R-134a). Some less common 

alternatives for these end-uses, such as 

R-401A, R-403B, R-414A and other 

blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC142b,34 have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 

0.047. Thus, propane has an ODP lower 

than or identical to the ODPs of other 

alternatives in these end-uses.35

The GWP is a means of quantifying 

the potential integrated climate forcing 

of various greenhouse gases relative to 

a value of one for CO2. Propane has a 

relatively low integrated GWP of 

three.36 For comparison, some other 

commonly used acceptable refrigerants 

in these end-uses are R-134a and R404A, with GWPs of about 1,430 and 

3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 

2, the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants 

in commercial ice machines ranges from 

zero for ammonia vapor compression, 

ammonia absorption, and the not-inkind Stirling cycle technology to 

approximately 3,990 for R-507A, while 

for water coolers, acceptable substitutes 

have GWPs ranging from 31 for THR-02 

to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.37 In 

very low temperature refrigeration, a 

common refrigerant is R-508B, with a 

GWP of 13,400, while the recently listed 

refrigerant ethane has a GWP of 

approximately six and CO2 has a GWP 

of one; the GWPs for substitutes in this 

end-use range from one for CO2 to 

14,800 for HFC-23. Propane’s GWP is 

comparable to or significantly lower 

than those of other alternatives in these 

end-uses. 

TABLE 2—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF PROPANE COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN NEW COMMERCIAL ICE

MACHINES, WATER COOLERS, AND VERY LOW TEMPERATURE REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Propane ....................................................................... 3 0 Yes ............. Acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

Commercial Ice Machines 

Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-421B, 

R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-449A, R450A, R-507A, R-513A.

0–3,990 0 No ............... No change. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC Blend 

Beta), IKON A, IKON B, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 417A, R-422A, R-422B, 

R-422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A, R-438A, RS-24 

(2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), 

THR-02, THR-03.

30–3,610 0–0.009 Yes 3 ........... No change. 

Water Coolers 

HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, R410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-437A, R-450A, 

R-507A, R-513A.

0–3,990 0 No ............... No change. 

FOR12A, FOR-12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC Blend 

Beta), IKON B, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/

1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-438A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, THR04.

30–3,090 0–0.009 Yes 3 ........... No change. 

Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment 

CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-7000, HFE-7100, 

HFE-7200, R-170 (ethane), R-404A, R-407C, R410A, R-410B, R-507A, R-508A, R-508B.

1–14,800 0 No ............... No change. 

ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC, PFC662HC, PFC-552HC, and FLC-15.

2,530–8,500 0 Yes 3 ........... No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the blend are VOC. 

The overall GHG effects of these 

refrigerants in various end-uses depend 

upon the design of the appliances, since 

the ‘‘indirect’’ GHG emissions 

associated with electricity consumption 

typically exceed the GHG emissions 

from the refrigerants over the full 

lifecycle of refrigerant-containing 

products.38 These indirect emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Options Committee. This document is accessible at: 

http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/

RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf. 39Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for 

R-170 and R-290 in Very Low Temperature 

Refrigeration. May, 2015. 40Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, 

September, 2013. EPA SNAP Submittal—Revision 

to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines, 

Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. 41Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. 

42 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

43 Ibid. 

44The analysis described here was conducted 

prior to finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

has not yet made ozone attainment area 

designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

45 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 46This less conservative analysis included some 

use of R-443A in room AC units because that 

substitute was under evaluation for that end-use. 

Elsewhere in this proposal, we propose to find R443A and propylene unacceptable in residential 

and light-commercial AC and heat pumps, 

including room AC units. The propylene in R-443A, 

representing 12 percent of refrigerant emitted, was 

responsible for about 75 percent of the 0.15 ppb 

increase in ozone in this scenario, while all uses of 

propane, representing 83 percent of refrigerant 

emitted, was responsible for about 21 percent of the 

increase of ozone in this scenario. Thus, only 0.03 

ppb of the o.15 ppb observed in Los Angeles would 

be due to propane and other acceptable HCs. 

47 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

occur from combustion of fossil fuel at 

power plants in order to supply electric 

power for operation of the refrigeration 

equipment. 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 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

conservation standards) in determining 

whether alternatives are ‘‘available.’’ We 

recognize that the energy efficiency of 

any given piece of equipment is in part 

affected by the choice of refrigerant and 

the particular thermodynamic and 

thermophysical properties that 

refrigerant possesses, as well as other 

factors. For example, appliances that are 

optimized for a specific refrigerant will 

operate more efficiently. 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 in operation. 

Although we cannot know what energy 

efficiency will be achieved in future 

products using propane, or any other 

specific acceptable refrigerant, we can 

point to both actual equipment and 

testing results that suggest that 

equipment optimized for propane may 

improve energy efficiency, and is 

unlikely to negatively impact it.39 40 41

Further, testing data, peer-reviewed 

journal articles and other information 

provided by the submitters for propane 

in the proposed end-uses indicate that 

equipment using propane is likely to 

require a smaller refrigerant charge, to 

have a higher coefficient of 

performance, and to use less energy 

than equipment currently being 

manufactured that uses other 

refrigerants that currently are listed as 

acceptable under SNAP in these enduses. Also see section VI.A.1.f below 

concerning the role of the DOE energy 

conservation standards in ensuring that 

overall energy efficiency of equipment 

will be maintained or improved over 

time. 

In addition to global impacts on the 

atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential 

impacts of propane and other HC 

refrigerants on local air quality. Propane 

is a 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 

(NAAQS). Potential emissions of VOC 

from all substitutes for all end-uses in 

the refrigeration and AC sector are 

addressed by the venting prohibition 

under CAA section 608. Under that 

prohibition, refrigerant substitutes (and 

thus the VOC they contain) may only be 

emitted where EPA issues a final 

determination exempting a refrigerant 

substitute from the venting prohibition 

on the basis that venting, releasing or 

disposing of such substance does not 

pose a threat to the environment, as 

proposed elsewhere in this action (see 

section VI.A.2.a, ‘‘What is EPA’s 

proposal regarding whether venting of 

propane in the end-uses in this action 

would pose a threat to the 

environment?’’ below). EPA estimates 

that potential emissions of HCs, 

including propane, when used as 

refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in 

the refrigeration and AC sector, have 

little impact on local air quality, with 

the exception of unsaturated HCs such 

as propylene.42

EPA analyzed a number of scenarios 

to consider the potential impacts on 

local air quality if HC refrigerants were 

used widely.43 The analysis considered 

both worst-case and more realistic 

scenarios. The worst-case scenario 

assumed that the most reactive HC 

listed as acceptable (isobutane) was 

used in all refrigeration and AC uses 

even though isobutane has not been 

listed acceptable for use in all 

refrigeration and AC uses, and that all 

refrigerant used was emitted to the 

atmosphere. In that extreme scenario, 

the model predicted that the maximum 

increase in any single 8-hour average 

ground-level ozone concentration would 

be 0.72 ppb in Los Angeles, which is the 

area with the highest level of ozone 

pollution in the United States. Given the 

potential sources of uncertainty in the 

modeling, the conservativeness of the 

assumptions, and the finding that the 

incremental VOC emissions from 

refrigerant emissions would not cause 

any area that otherwise would meet the 

2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it,44 we 

believe that the use of isobutane 

consistent with the use conditions 

required in EPA’s regulations will not 

result in significantly greater risk to the 

environment than other alternatives. 

Further, propane is less reactive than 

isobutane and thus we reach a similar 

conclusion for propane. 

In a less conservative analysis 

potential impacts on ambient ozone 

levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses 

that would be more likely to use HC 

refrigerants between now and 2030, 

including end-uses where they 

previously have been listed as 

acceptable and where they are proposed 

to be acceptable under this rule. For 

example, we assumed use of propane in 

water coolers and commercial ice 

machines and in end-uses where it is 

listed as acceptable, including room air 

conditioners and household and retail 

food refrigeration equipment and we 

assumed the use of other HCs such as 

isobutane in household and retail food 

refrigeration equipment and R-441A in 

room air conditioners and household 

and retail food refrigeration equipment. 

For further information on the specific 

assumptions, see the docket for this 

rulemaking 45 Based on this still 

conservative but more probable 

assessment of refrigerant use, we found 

that even if all the refrigerant in 

appliances in end-uses addressed in this 

proposed rule and in appliances in enduses for which HCs are listed as 

acceptable were to be emitted, there 

would be a worst-case impact of a 0.15 

ppb increase in ozone for a single 8- 

hour average concentration in the Los 

Angeles area, which is the area with the 

highest level of ozone pollution in the 

United States.46 In the other cities 

examined in the analysis, Houston and 

Atlanta, impacts were smaller (no more 

than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb for a single 8- 

hour average concentration, 

respectively).47 For areas in the analysis 

that were not violating the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the impacts did not cause an 

exceedance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Because of the relatively low air 

quality impacts of propane if it is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22827 

48 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers 

Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

49 ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Very Low 

Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R290) and Ethane (R-170). 

50 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice 

Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

released to the atmosphere from the 

proposed end-uses even in a worst-case 

scenario, we propose that propane does 

not have a significantly greater overall 

impact on human health and the 

environment based on its effects on 

local air quality than other refrigerants 

listed as acceptable in commercial ice 

machines, water coolers, and very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

Propane is highly volatile and 

typically evaporates or partitions to air, 

rather than contaminating surface 

waters. Propane’s effects on aquatic life 

are expected to be small and pose no 

greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem 

effects than those of other alternatives 

for these uses. 

ii. Flammability 

Propane’s flammability risks are of 

potential concern because commercial 

ice machines, water coolers, and very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment have traditionally used 

refrigerants that are not flammable. 

Without appropriate use conditions, the 

flammability risk posed by propane 

would be higher than non-flammable 

refrigerants because individuals may not 

be aware that their actions could 

potentially cause a fire. In this section, 

we discuss the flammability risks posed 

by propane and identify proposed use 

conditions that would mitigate those 

risks such that propane would not pose 

significantly greater risk due to 

flammability than other substitutes in 

these end-uses. 

Because of its flammability, propane 

could pose a significant safety concern 

for workers and consumers in the enduses addressed in this proposal if it is 

not handled correctly. In the presence of 

an ignition source (e.g., static electricity 

spark resulting from closing a door, use 

of a torch during service, or a short 

circuit in wiring that controls the motor 

of a compressor), an explosion or a fire 

could occur when the concentration of 

refrigerant exceeds its lower 

flammability limit (LFL). Propane’s LFL 

is 21,000 ppm (2.1%). Therefore, to use 

propane safely, it is important to 

minimize the presence of potential 

ignition sources and to reduce the 

likelihood that the concentration of 

propane will exceed the LFL. Under the 

proposed listing decision, propane 

would be acceptable for use only in new 

equipment (self-contained commercial 

ice machines, water coolers, and very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment) specifically designed for 

this refrigerant. OSHA and building 

code requirements generally address 

flammability risks in the workplace and 

we presume that the original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs), who would be 

storing large quantities of the 

refrigerant, are familiar with and use 

proper safety precautions to minimize 

the risk of explosion, consistent with 

those requirements. Therefore, we are 

not proposing use conditions to address 

workplace risk, which would be 

redundant of already existing 

requirements. We are proposing, 

however, to include recommendations 

in the ‘‘Further Information’’ section of 

the SNAP listings that these facilities be 

equipped with proper ventilation 

systems and be properly designed to 

reduce possible ignition sources. 

To determine whether flammability 

would be a concern for service 

personnel or for consumers, EPA 

analyzed a plausible worst-case scenario 

to model a catastrophic release of 

propane. The worst-case scenario 

analysis for water coolers and for very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment revealed that even if the 

unit’s full charge is emitted within one 

minute, the leaked refrigerant 

concentration did not reach propane’s 

LFL of 2.1%, provided that the charge 

sizes were no greater than those 

specified in the relevant standard from 

UL.48 49 We are proposing the maximum 

charge size specified in the standard as 

a use condition; thus, there would not 

be an unacceptable risk of fire or 

explosion, even under those worst-case 

assumptions, so long as the charge does 

not exceed the use conditions in this 

proposed rule. In the case of commercial 

ice machines, the worst-case scenario 

with use of a charge size of 150 g and 

assuming stratification of refrigerant 

into the bottom 0.4 m of the room 

resulted in attaining 102 percent of the 

LFL; less conservative, but reasonable, 

assumptions (e.g., larger room size, 

greater mixing of the refrigerant in the 

entire room, same charge size of 150 g) 

resulted in concentrations at 18 percent 

or less of the LFL.50 Thus, we expect 

there would not be an unacceptable risk 

of fire or explosion provided that the 

charge size is limited to 150 g. EPA also 

reviewed the submitters’ detailed 

assessments of the probability of events 

that might create a fire and approaches 

to avoid sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. Further information on 

these analyses and EPA’s risk 

assessments are available in the docket 

for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0663). Further, service personnel 

or consumers may not be familiar with 

refrigeration or AC equipment 

containing a flammable refrigerant. 

Therefore, use conditions are necessary 

to ensure people handling such 

equipment are aware that equipment 

contains a flammable refrigerant and to 

ensure safe handling. 

iii. Toxicity 

In evaluating potential toxicity 

impacts of propane on human health in 

these end-uses, EPA considered both 

occupational and consumer risks. In 

general when evaluating non-cancer 

toxicity risks of a substitute, we use 

measured exposure concentrations if 

available, or modeled exposure 

concentrations using conservative 

assumptions appropriate to an end-use, 

and compare these exposure levels to 

recommended or required exposure 

limits for a compound that are intended 

to protect against adverse health effects. 

Where measured or modeled exposure 

levels are below relevant exposure 

limits for a chemical, we consider 

toxicity risks to be acceptable. Other 

acceptable substitutes listed for these 

end-uses have been evaluated for 

toxicity in this manner, including 

ethane for very low temperature 

refrigeration, ammonia for commercial 

ice machines, and a number of HFC 

blends for all three end-uses. 

EPA investigated the risk of 

asphyxiation and of exposure to toxic 

levels of refrigerant for a worst-case 

scenario and a typical use. In the worstcase scenario of a catastrophic leak, we 

modeled release of the unit’s full charge 

within one minute into a confined space 

to estimate concentrations that might 

result. We considered a conservatively 

small space appropriate to each end-use, 

such as a small galley kitchen of 18 m3

for a water cooler, a kitchen of a fast 

food restaurant of 22 m3 for a 

commercial ice machine or in a 

laboratory module of 28 m3 for very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

To evaluate the toxicity of propane, 

EPA estimated the maximum time 

weighted average (TWA) exposure both 

for a short-term exposure scenario, with 

a 30-minute TWA exposure, and for an 

8-hour TWA that would be more typical 

of occupational exposure for a 

technician servicing the equipment or a 

worker disposing of appliances. We 

compared these short-term and longterm exposure values to relevant 

industry and government workplace 

exposure limits for propane. The 

modeling results indicate that both the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22828 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

51The AEGL limit is an emergency guideline for 

exposures to the general population (including 

susceptible populations) and is not time-weighted. 

It also considers the chemical’s flammability in 

addition to its toxicity. EPA develops a set of AEGL 

values for a substance for five exposure periods (10 

and 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours and 8 hours). For 

each exposure period, three different AEGL values 

are developed to address different levels of 

toxicological impacts. Of relevance for the modeled 

scenario is the AEGL–1, which is defined as: ‘‘the 

airborne concentration, expressed as parts per 

million or milligrams per cubic meter (ppm or mg/ 

m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that 

the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 

effects. However, the effects are not disabling and 

are transient and reversible upon cessation of 

exposure.’’ While permanent toxicological effects 

are not expected up to the AEGL–2 value, this limit 

is not relevant for this analysis because at that level, 

flammability would be a greater concern. 

52 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers 

Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

53 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice 

Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

54This is intended to mean a completely new 

refrigeration circuit containing a new evaporator, 

condenser and refrigerant tubing. 

55UL, 2009. Standard 563—Standard for Ice 

Makers. A summary of this document is accessible 

at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563. 

56UL, 2008. Standard 399—Standard for 

Drinking-Water Coolers. A summary of this 

document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.

com/standard/?id=399_7. 

57UL, 2010. Standard 471—Standard for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. A summary 

of this document is accessible at: http://

ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10. 

short-term (30-minute) and long-term (8- 

hour) worker exposure concentrations 

would be below the relevant workplace 

exposure limits, such as the OSHA PEL 

of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA), and the 

National Research Council’s Acute 

Emergency Guideline Limit Level 1 

(AEGL–1) 51 of 6,900 ppm over 30 

minutes. 

A similar analysis of asphyxiation 

risks considered whether a worst-case 

release of refrigerant in the same room 

sizes would result in oxygen 

concentrations of 12 percent or less. 

This analysis found that impacts on 

oxygen concentrations were minimal, 

with oxygen concentrations remaining 

at approximately 21 percent. 

For equipment with which consumers 

might come into contact, such as water 

coolers and commercial ice machines, 

EPA performed a consumer exposure 

analysis. In this analysis, we examined 

potential catastrophic release of the 

entire charge of the substitute in one 

minute under a worst-case scenario. We 

did not examine exposure to consumers 

in very low temperature refrigeration, as 

equipment for this end-use would 

typically be used in the workplace, such 

as in laboratories, and not in a home or 

public space. The analysis was 

undertaken to determine the 30-minute 

TWA exposure levels for the substitute, 

which were then compared to the 

toxicity limit to assess the risk to 

consumers. 

EPA considered toxicity limits for 

consumer exposure that reflect a shortterm exposure such as might occur at 

home or in a store or other public 

setting where a member of the general 

public could be exposed and could then 

escape. The toxicity limit that we used 

in our analysis of consumer exposure 

was an AEGL–1 of 6,900 ppm over 30 

minutes. The analysis of consumer 

exposure assumed that 100 percent of 

the unit’s charge would be released over 

one minute, at which time the 

concentration of refrigerant would peak 

in an enclosed space, and then steadily 

decline. Refrigerant concentrations were 

modeled under two air change 

scenarios, believed to represent the 

baseline of potential flow rates for a 

home or public space, assuming flow 

rates of 2.3 air changes per hour (ACH) 

in a household kitchen and 20 ACH in 

a restaurant kitchen.52 53 The highest 

concentrations of the refrigerant occur 

in the lower stratum of the room when 

assuming the lower ventilation level of 

2.3 ACH. Calculating the TWA exposure 

using 2.3 ACH results in a higher 

concentration than calculating the TWA 

exposure using 20 ACH. Even under the 

very conservative assumptions used in 

the consumer exposure modeling, the 

estimated 30-minute consumer 

exposures to propane are lower than the 

relevant toxicity limits. 

Based upon our analysis, workplace 

and consumer exposure to propane 

when used in these end-uses according 

to the proposed use conditions is not 

expected to exceed relevant exposure 

limits. Thus, propane does not pose 

significantly greater toxicity risks to 

other acceptable refrigerants in these 

end-uses. For further information, 

including EPA’s risk screens and risk 

assessments as well as information from 

the submitters of propane as a substitute 

refrigerant, see docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0663. 

c. What are the proposed use 

conditions? 

In order to ensure that use of propane 

in these three end-uses would not cause 

greater risk to human health or the 

environment than use of other 

alternatives, we have identified and are 

proposing use conditions to address 

flammability and toxicity concerns. The 

proposed use conditions include 

conditions consistent with industry 

standards, limits on charge size, and 

requirements for warnings and markings 

on equipment. 

i. New Equipment Only; Not Intended 

for Use as a Retrofit Alternative 

EPA is proposing that, in the specified 

end-uses, propane be limited to use only 

in new equipment 54 that has been 

designed and manufactured specifically 

for use with propane. Propane was not 

submitted under the SNAP program to 

be used in retrofitted equipment, and no 

information was provided on how to 

mitigate hazards of flammable 

refrigerants when used in equipment 

that was not designed for flammable 

refrigerants. If this use condition is 

finalized as proposed, use of propane in 

equipment not designed for its use, 

including existing equipment designed 

for another refrigerant, would be in 

violation of CAA section 612(c) and the 

corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G. 

ii. Standards 

EPA is proposing that propane be 

used only in equipment that meets all 

requirements in the relevant 

supplements for flammable refrigerants 

in certain applicable UL standards for 

refrigeration and AC equipment. 

Specifically, Supplement SA to the 8th 

edition of UL 563 standard, dated July 

31, 2009, applies to self-contained 

commercial ice machines using 

flammable refrigerants; 55 the UL 

standard for water coolers using 

flammable refrigerants is Supplement 

SB to the 7th edition of UL 399, dated 

August 22, 2008; 56 and very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment is 

sufficiently similar to stand-alone 

commercial refrigerators that an 

appropriate standard is Supplement SB 

to the 10th edition of UL 471, dated 

November 24, 2010.57

UL has tested equipment for 

flammability risk in household and 

retail food refrigeration and for 

commercial freezers for very low 

temperature refrigeration. Further, UL 

has developed acceptable safety 

standards including requirements for 

construction, for markings, and for 

performance tests concerning refrigerant 

leakage, ignition of switching 

components, surface temperature of 

parts, and component strength after 

being scratched. These standards were 

developed in an open and consensusbased approach, with the assistance of 

experts in the AC and refrigeration 

industry as well as experts involved in 

assessing the safety of products. While 

similar standards exist from other 

bodies such as the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22829 

58To place this in context, a 150 g charge is about 

five times the charge in a disposable lighter (30 g). 

59AHRI, 2014. Guideline N–2014 for Assignment 

of Refrigerant Container Colors. This document is 

accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_

Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_

2014.pdf. 

are proposing to rely on UL standards as 

those that are most applicable to and 

recognized by the U.S. market. This 

proposed approach is the same as that 

adopted in our previous rules on 

flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 

10, 2015). 

iii. Charge Size 

EPA is proposing use conditions that 

limit the amount of propane allowed in 

each refrigerant circuit to 150 g.58 It is 

necessary to set limits on charge size in 

order for propane not to pose a risk to 

human health or the environment that is 

greater than the risk posed by other 

substitutes. These limits will reduce the 

risk to workers and consumers since 

under scenarios we analyzed, a leak of 

the proposed charge sizes did not result 

in concentrations of the refrigerant that 

met or exceeded the LFL. 

EPA is proposing limitations on 

refrigerant charge size for self-contained 

commercial ice machines, water coolers, 

and very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment that reflect the UL 563, UL 

399, and UL 471 standards. As 

discussed above in paragraph ii of this 

section, we believe UL standards are 

appropriate because they are the most 

applicable to and recognized by the U.S. 

market and offer requirements 

developed by a consensus of experts. 

UL Standards 563 (ice machines), 399 

(water coolers), and 471 (commercial 

stand-alone refrigeration equipment) 

limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to 

150 grams (5.29 ounces). We note that 

the charge size limit for propane in the 

UL standards is in line with the IEC 

60335–2–89 standard addressing these 

end-uses, which also has a charge size 

limit of 150 grams. 

iv. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping 

EPA proposes that equipment 

designed for use with propane must 

have distinguishing color-coded hoses 

and piping to indicate use of a 

flammable refrigerant. This will help 

technicians immediately identify the 

use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby 

reducing the risk of using sparking 

equipment or otherwise having an 

ignition source nearby. The AC and 

refrigeration industry currently uses 

distinguishing colors as means to 

identify different refrigerants. Likewise, 

distinguishing coloring has been used 

elsewhere to indicate an unusual and 

potentially dangerous situation, for 

example in the use of orange-insulated 

wires in hybrid electric vehicles. 

Currently, no industry standard exists 

for color-coded hoses or pipes for 

propane. EPA is proposing that all such 

refrigerator tubing be colored red 

Pantone matching system (PMS) #185 to 

match the red band displayed on the 

container of flammable refrigerants 

under the Air Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Guideline 

‘‘N’’ 2014, ‘‘2014 Guideline for 

Assignment of Refrigerant Container 

Colors.’’ 59 This proposal mirrors the 

existing use condition for HCs in 

residential and commercial refrigeratorfreezers, vending machines, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment, 

non-mechanical heat transfer equipment 

and room air conditioners (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 

10, 2015). EPA wants to ensure that 

there is adequate notice that a 

flammable refrigerant is being used 

within a particular piece of equipment 

or appliance. One mechanism to 

distinguish hoses and pipes is to add a 

colored plastic sleeve or cap to the 

service tube. The colored plastic sleeve 

or cap would have to be forcibly 

removed in order to access the service 

tube. This would signal to the 

technician that the refrigeration circuit 

that she/he was about to access 

contained a flammable refrigerant, even 

if all warning labels were somehow 

removed. This sleeve would be of the 

same red color (PMS #185) and could 

also be boldly marked with a graphic to 

indicate the refrigerant was flammable. 

This could be a cost-effective alternative 

to painting or dying the hose or pipe. 

EPA is particularly concerned with 

ensuring adequate and proper 

notification for servicing and disposal of 

appliances containing flammable 

refrigerants. The use of color-coded 

hoses, as well as the use of warning 

labels discussed below, is necessary to 

ensure flammable refrigerants can be 

used without presenting significantly 

more risk than other alternatives and 

would be consistent with other general 

industry practices. This proposed 

approach is consistent with the 

approach adopted in our previous rules 

on flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 

10, 2015). 

v. Labeling 

As a use condition, EPA is proposing 

to require labeling of self-contained 

commercial ice machines, water coolers, 

and, very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. EPA is proposing the 

warning labels on the equipment 

contain letters at least 1⁄4 inch high and 

that they be permanently affixed to the 

equipment. Warning label language 

requirements are as follows: 

• ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To 

Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture 

Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must 

be provided on or near any evaporators 

that can be contacted by the consumer. 

• ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service 

Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant 

Tubing.’’ This marking must be located 

near the machine compartment. 

• ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide 

Before Attempting To Service This 

Product. All Safety Precautions Must be 

Followed.’’ This marking must be 

located near the machine compartment. 

• ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Dispose of Properly In 

Accordance With Federal Or Local 

Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant 

Used.’’ This marking must be provided 

on the exterior of the refrigeration 

equipment. 

• CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion Due To Puncture Of 

Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling 

Instructions Carefully. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must 

be provided near all exposed refrigerant 

tubing. 

The warning label language is similar 

to or exactly the same as that required 

in UL standards: For commercial ice 

machines in UL 563 in section SB6.1, 

for water coolers in UL 399 in section 

SA6.1, and for commercial refrigerators 

and freezers, including very low 

temperature freezers, in UL 471 in 

section SB6.1. 

It would be difficult to see warning 

labels with the minimum lettering 

height requirement of 1⁄8 inch in these 

UL standards. Therefore, as in the 

requirements in our previous HC 

refrigerants rules for residential and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers, 

vending machines, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment, 

non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment, and room air conditioners 

(76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 

19453, April 10, 2015), EPA is 

proposing the minimum height for 

lettering must be 1⁄4 inch as opposed to 1⁄8 inch, which will make it easier for 

technicians, consumers, retail 

storeowners, and first responders to 

view the warning labels. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22830 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

60AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating. Safety 

Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 2013. This 

document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/

ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-eFlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf. 

61See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/standards_test_

procedures.html. 

62Refrigeration or AC 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 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. 

63Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for 

R-170 and R-290 in Very Low Temperature 

Refrigeration. May, 2015. 

64Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, 

September, 2013. EPA SNAP Submittal—Revision 

to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines, 

Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. 

65Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. 

d. What recommendations does EPA 

have for the safe use of propane? 

In addition to establishing regulatory 

use conditions, which are binding on 

end users, EPA may also make 

recommendations for use of a substitute. 

EPA is proposing to recommend that 

only technicians specifically trained in 

handling flammable refrigerant 

substitutes dispose of or service 

refrigeration and AC equipment 

containing these substances. Trained 

technicians should know how to 

minimize the risk of fire and the 

procedures for using flammable 

refrigerant substitutes safely. Releases of 

large quantities of flammable 

refrigerants during servicing and 

manufacturing, especially in enclosed, 

poorly ventilated spaces or in areas 

where large amounts of refrigerant are 

stored, could cause an explosion if an 

ignition source exists nearby. For these 

reasons, technicians should be properly 

trained to handle flammable refrigerant 

substitutes when maintaining, servicing, 

repairing, or disposing of water coolers, 

commercial ice machines, and very low 

temperature freezers. In addition, EPA 

recommends that if propane would be 

vented, released, or disposed of (rather 

than recovered), as is proposed for the 

specified end-uses in this rule, the 

release should be in a well-ventilated 

area, such as outside of a building. 

Ensuring proper ventilation and 

avoiding ignition sources are 

recommended practices, whether 

venting or recovering a flammable 

refrigerant. 

The Australian Institute of 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 

Heating (AIRAH) provides useful 

guidance on safety precautions 

technicians can follow when servicing 

equipment containing flammable 

refrigerants or when venting refrigerant. 

One of those practices is to connect a 

hose to the appliance to allow for 

venting the refrigerant outside.60 This 

document is included in the docket for 

this proposed rule (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0663). 

We are aware that at least two 

organizations in the United States, 

Refrigeration Service Engineers Society 

(RSES) and the ESCO Institute, have 

developed technician training programs 

in collaboration with refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers and users that 

address safe use of flammable 

refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA 

has reviewed several training programs 

provided as part of SNAP submissions 

from persons interested in flammable 

refrigerant substitutes. The agency 

intends to update the test bank for 

technician certification under CAA 

section 608 as we have done previously, 

and will consider including additional 

questions on flammable refrigerants. By 

adding such questions to the test bank, 

EPA would supplement but would not 

replace technician training programs 

currently provided by non-government 

entities. EPA will seek additional 

information and guidance on how best 

to incorporate this content through a 

separate process outside the scope of 

this final rule. 

e. When would the listing apply? 

EPA proposes that this listing would 

apply 30 days after the date of 

publication of a final rule. This date, the 

same as the proposed effective date of 

this regulation, allows for the safe use 

of this substitute at the earliest 

opportunity. 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

i. How would this proposed listing 

relate to federal energy conservation 

standards? 

For some of the types of equipment 

covered in this proposal, DOE has 

established energy conservation 

standards. For example, DOE energy 

conservation standards apply to 

automatic commercial ice machines.61

Thus, total energy use with propane can 

be expected to be no higher than that 

required by the standards for those 

classes of equipment.62 DOE does not 

have an energy conservation standard 

that would apply to water coolers or to 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. EPA considers technical 

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

DOE energy conservation standards) in 

determining whether alternatives are 

‘‘available.’’ Based on available 

information, we found no evidence that 

propane would reduce energy efficiency 

or that equipment using propane would 

be unable to meet DOE energy efficiency 

standards in the end-uses proposed in 

this rule, and we found some evidence 

that propane may improve energy 

efficiency.63 64 65

ii. How would this proposed listing 

relate to regulations implementing the 

venting prohibition under CAA section 

608? 

Below in section VI.A.2 of this 

document, EPA is proposing to exempt 

propane from the venting prohibition 

under CAA section 608 when propane 

is used as a refrigerant in self-contained 

commercial ice machines, water coolers, 

or very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of the proposed listing of propane as an 

acceptable refrigerant in self-contained 

commercial ice machines, water coolers, 

and very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment, including the proposed use 

conditions discussed in section 

VI.A.1.c. We request comment on our 

risk screens and the assumptions and 

exposure and flammability levels EPA 

used to evaluate risk. We are 

particularly interested in comment of 

two of the proposed use conditions: (1) 

The use of red marking for pipes, hoses 

and other devices including direct color 

application on the applicable parts of 

the system, such as a red plastic sleeve 

(see section VI.A.1.c.iv, ‘‘Color-coded 

hoses and piping’’); and (2) the UL 

standards that EPA proposes to 

incorporate by reference (i.e., 

Supplement SA to the 8th edition of UL 

563, dated July 31, 2009, for selfcontained commercial ice machines, 

Supplement SB to the 7th edition of UL 

399, dated August 22, 2008, for water 

coolers; and Supplement SB to the 10th 

edition of UL 471, dated November 24, 

2010, for very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22831 

66 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

67 Ibid. 

2. Proposed Exemption for Propane 

From the Venting Prohibition Under 

CAA Section 608 for the End-Uses in 

the Proposed New SNAP Listing 

a. What is EPA’s proposal regarding 

whether venting of propane in the enduses in this action would pose a threat 

to the environment? 

EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant 

substitute propane under the SNAP 

program as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in newly manufactured 

water coolers, self-contained 

commercial ice machines, and very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

EPA is also proposing to exempt 

propane in these end-uses from the 

venting prohibition under CAA section 

608(c)(2). For purposes of CAA section 

608(c)(2), EPA considers two factors in 

determining whether or not venting, 

release, or disposal of a refrigerant 

substitute during the maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

appliances poses a threat to the 

environment. See 69 FR 11948, March 

12, 2004; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; 

and 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015. First, 

EPA analyzes the threat to the 

environment due to inherent 

characteristics of the refrigerant 

substitute, such as GWP. Second, EPA 

determines whether and to what extent 

venting, release, or disposal actually 

takes place during the maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

appliances, and to what extent such 

actions are controlled by other 

authorities, regulations, or practices. To 

the extent that such releases are 

adequately controlled by other 

authorities, EPA defers to those 

authorities. 

i. Potential Environmental Impacts 

EPA has evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts of releasing into 

the environment propane, the substitute 

that we are proposing to list under the 

SNAP program as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, in water coolers, selfcontained commercial ice machines, 

and very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. In particular, we assessed 

the potential impact of the release of 

propane on local air quality and its 

ability to decompose in the atmosphere, 

its ODP, its GWP, and its potential 

impacts on ecosystems. 

As explained above in section 

VI.A.1.b.i, ‘‘Environmental impacts,’’ 

propane’s ODP is zero, its GWP is 

approximately three, and its effects on 

aquatic life are expected to be small. As 

to potential effects on local air quality, 

based on the analysis and modeling 

results described in section VI.A.1.b.i of 

this preamble, EPA proposes to 

conclude that release of propane from 

the end-uses proposed in this action, in 

addition to the HCs previously listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

their specific end-uses, is expected to 

have little impact on local air quality. In 

this regard, EPA finds particularly 

noteworthy that even assuming 100 

percent market penetration of propane 

and the other acceptable HCs in the 

proposed and acceptable end-uses, 

which is a conservative assumption, the 

highest impact for a single 8-hour 

average concentration based on this 

analysis would be 0.03 ppb in Los 

Angeles. 

In addition, when examining all HC 

substitute refrigerants in those uses for 

which UL currently has standards in 

place, for which the SNAP program has 

already listed the uses as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, or for which 

the SNAP program is reviewing a 

submission, including those in this rule, 

we found that even if all the refrigerant 

in appliances in end-uses proposed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions in 

this proposed rule and listed as 

acceptable in previous rules were to be 

emitted, there would be a worst-case 

impact of less than 0.15 ppb for groundlevel ozone in the Los Angeles area.66

The use conditions established in the 

SNAP listings limit the total amount of 

refrigerant in each refrigerant circuit to 

150 g or less, depending on the end-use. 

Because propane is not proposed to be 

used in all refrigerant uses, the total 

amount of propane that could be 

emitted in the end-uses evaluated is 

estimated at roughly ten percent of total 

refrigerant emissions, or less than 

16,000 metric tons annually.67 Further, 

there are other substitute refrigerants 

that are not VOC that may also be used 

in these end-uses, so our analysis 

assuming complete market penetration 

of HCs is conservative. In light of its 

evaluation of potential environmental 

impacts, EPA proposes that propane in 

the end-uses for which it is proposed to 

be listed under SNAP as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in this notice 

is not expected to pose a threat to the 

environment on the basis of the inherent 

characteristics of this substance and the 

limited quantities used in the relevant 

end-uses. In this regard, EPA finds 

particularly noteworthy that even 

assuming 100% market penetration of 

propane and the other acceptable HCs in 

the proposed and acceptable end-uses, 

which is a conservative assumption, the 

highest impact for a single 8-hour 

average concentration based on this 

analysis would be 0.03 ppb in Los 

Angeles. 

ii. Flammability and Toxicity 

As discussed above in sections 

VI.A.1.b.ii, ‘‘Flammability’’ and 

VI.A.1.b.iii, ‘‘Toxicity,’’ EPA’s SNAP 

program evaluated the flammability and 

toxicity risks from propane in the 

proposed end-uses in this rule. EPA is 

providing some of that information in 

this section as well. 

Propane is classified as an A3 

refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2010 and subsequent addenda, 

indicating that it has low toxicity and 

high flammability. Propane has an LFL 

of 2.1%. To address flammability risks, 

this proposal provides 

recommendations for its safe use (see 

section VI.A.1.d, ‘‘What 

recommendations does EPA have for the 

safe use of propane?’’ above). The SNAP 

program’s analysis suggests that the 

proposed use conditions in this 

proposed rule will mitigate flammability 

risks. 

Like most refrigerants, at high 

concentrations HCs can displace oxygen 

and cause asphyxiation. Various 

industry and regulatory standards exist 

to address asphyxiation and toxicity 

risks. The SNAP program’s analysis of 

asphyxiation and toxicity risks suggests 

that the proposed use conditions in this 

proposed rule would mitigate 

asphyxiation and toxicity risks. 

Furthermore, it is the Agency’s 

understanding that flammability risks 

and occupational exposures to HCs are 

adequately regulated by OSHA and 

building and fire codes at a local and 

national level. 

iii. Authorities, Controls, or Practices 

EPA expects that existing authorities, 

controls, and/or practices will mitigate 

environmental risk from the release of 

propane. Analyses performed for both 

this proposed rule and the SNAP rules 

issued in 1994, 2011, and 2015 (59 FR 

13044, March 17, 1994; 76 FR 38832, 

December 20, 2011; and 80 FR 19453, 

April 10, 2015, respectively)) indicate 

that existing regulatory requirements 

and industry practices limit and control 

the emission of propane. As explained 

below, EPA proposes that the limits and 

controls under other authorities, 

regulations, or practices adequately 

control the release of and exposure to 

propane and mitigate risks from any 

possible release. 

As mentioned above, the 

determination of whether venting, 

release, or disposal of a substitute 

refrigerant poses a threat to the 

environment includes considering 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22832 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

whether such venting, release, or 

disposal is adequately controlled by 

other authorities, regulations, or 

practices. This information is another 

part of EPA’s proposal that the venting, 

release, or disposal of propane, in the 

specified end-uses and subject to the 

use conditions in this proposed action, 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

Industry service practices and OSHA 

standards and guidelines that address 

HC refrigeration equipment include 

monitoring efforts, engineering controls, 

and operating procedures. OSHA 

requirements that apply during 

servicing include continuous 

monitoring of explosive gas 

concentrations and oxygen levels. In 

general, HC emissions from refrigeration 

systems are likely to be significantly 

smaller than those emanating from the 

industrial process and storage systems, 

which are controlled for safety reasons. 

In the SNAP listings in section VI.A.1.c, 

‘‘What are the proposed use 

conditions?’’ we note that the amount of 

refrigerant substitute from a refrigerant 

loop is limited to 150 g in the end-uses 

proposed in this rule. This indicates 

that HC emissions from such uses are 

likely to be relatively small. 

The release and/or disposal of many 

refrigerant substitutes, including 

propane, are controlled by other 

authorities including various standards, 

and state and local building codes. To 

the extent that release during 

maintaining, repairing, servicing, or 

disposing of appliances is controlled by 

regulations and standards of other 

authorities, these practices and controls 

for the use of propane are sufficiently 

protective. These practices and controls 

mitigate the risk to the environment that 

may be posed by the venting, release, or 

disposal of propane during the 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances. 

EPA is aware of equipment that can 

be used to recover HC refrigerants. 

While there are no relevant U.S. 

standards for such recovery equipment 

currently, to the extent that propane is 

recovered rather than vented in specific 

end-uses and equipment, EPA 

recommends the use of recovery 

equipment designed specifically for 

flammable refrigerants in accordance 

with applicable safe handling practices. 

See section VI.A.1.d above, ‘‘What 

recommendations does EPA have for the 

safe use of propane?’’ 

b. What is EPA’s proposal regarding 

whether venting of propane in the enduses in this action should be exempted 

from the venting prohibition under CAA 

section 608? 

Consistent with the proposed listing 

under SNAP in this action, EPA 

proposes that venting, releasing or 

disposing of propane in water coolers, 

self-contained commercial ice 

machines, and very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment is not expected 

to pose a threat to the environment. As 

discussed more fully above, we propose 

this on the basis of the inherent 

characteristics of this substance, the 

limited quantities used in the relevant 

end-uses, and the limits and controls 

under other authorities, regulations, or 

practices that adequately control the 

release of and exposure to propane and 

mitigate risks from any possible release. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to revise 

the regulations at § 82.154(a)(1) to add 

propane in these end-uses to the list of 

substitute refrigerants that are exempt 

from the venting prohibition. We also 

note that EPA has recently proposed to 

revise the format of the text of this 

section to include separate paragraphs 

for each substitute refrigerant, rather 

than grouping refrigerants in an end-use 

(80 FR 69457; November 9, 2015). Thus, 

the final text of § 82.154(a)(1) may 

reflect revised language related to both 

the November 2015 proposal and to this 

proposal. 

c. When would the exemption from the 

venting prohibition apply? 

We are proposing that propane would 

be exempt from the venting prohibition 

as of 30 days after the publication of a 

final rule in the Federal Register. This 

would be the same as the date of the 

SNAP listing of propane in commercial 

ice machines, water coolers, and very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment. 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed exemption under CAA section 

608 and other EPA rules? 

If this proposed exemption were to 

become final as proposed, it would not 

mean that propane could be vented in 

all situations. Propane and other HCs 

being recovered, vented, released, or 

otherwise disposed of from commercial 

and industrial appliances are likely to 

be hazardous waste under RCRA (see 40 

CFR parts 261 through 270). As 

discussed in the final rules addressing 

the venting of ethane, isobutane, 

propane, and R-441A as refrigerant 

substitutes in certain end-uses, 

incidental releases may occur during the 

maintenance, service, and repair of 

appliances subject to CAA section 608 

(79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; 80 FR 

19454, April 10, 2015). Such incidental 

releases would not be subject to RCRA 

requirements for the disposal of 

hazardous waste, as such releases would 

not constitute disposal of the refrigerant 

charge as a solid waste, per se. Disposal 

or venting of propane from household 

appliances used in the home, such as a 

water cooler, is also generally not 

considered disposal of a hazardous 

waste under the existing RCRA 

regulations and could be vented under 

the household hazardous waste 

exemption, assuming other state or local 

requirements do not prohibit venting. 

See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, for 

commercial and industrial appliances 

such as self-contained commercial ice 

machines, very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment, or water 

coolers used in an industrial or office 

setting, it is likely that propane and 

other flammable HC refrigerant 

substitutes would be classified as 

hazardous waste and disposal of 

propane from such appliances would 

need to be managed as hazardous waste 

under the RCRA regulations (40 CFR 

parts 261 through 270), unless it is 

subject to a limited exception in those 

regulations if the ignitable refrigerant is 

to be recycled. 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of our proposal to exempt from CAA 

section 608’s venting prohibition the 

venting or release of propane used as a 

refrigerant substitute in water coolers, 

self-contained commercial ice 

machines, and very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment, as well as 

seeking comment on the proposed 

exemption language at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1). 

3. Proposed Listing of New Refrigerants 

as Unacceptable 

a. Proposed Listing of Certain 

Flammable Refrigerants as Unacceptable 

for Retrofits in Unitary Split AC 

Systems and Heat Pumps 

EPA is proposing to list the following 

flammable refrigerants as unacceptable 

for use in existing unitary split AC and 

heat pumps for residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps because 

they pose significantly more risk to 

human health or the environment than 

other available alternatives: 

• All refrigerants identified as 

flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2013. 

• All refrigerants meeting the criteria 

for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22833 

68EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to 

Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, Inc. June, 2013. This 

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

sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/mailfov_

envirosafe_06112013.pdf. 

ASHRAE Standard 34–2013. These 

include, but are not limited to, 

refrigerant products sold under the 

names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a 

refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, 

DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze 22a, 

EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 

22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, OzChill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 

22a. 

Existing unitary split AC systems and 

heat pumps were not designed to use a 

flammable refrigerant. We are aware of 

instances in which people or property 

have been harmed by retrofit or socalled ‘drop-in’ use of certain of the 

specified flammable refrigerants in 

equipment designed to use HCFC-22. 

For new equipment, we have listed 

certain flammable refrigerants as 

acceptable on the basis that 

flammability risks can be addressed in 

designing the equipment and mitigated 

through use conditions. In contrast, 

existing equipment has not been 

designed for flammable refrigerants and 

we have not identified appropriate use 

conditions that can manage the 

flammability risk for retrofits such that 

these flammable refrigerants would pose 

similar or lower risk than other 

available refrigerants in this end-use. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

The residential and light commercial 

AC and heat pumps end-use includes 

equipment for cooling air in individual 

rooms, in single-family homes, and 

sometimes in small commercial 

buildings. This end-use differs from 

commercial comfort AC, which uses 

chillers that cool water that is then used 

to cool air throughout a large 

commercial building, such as an office 

building or hotel. This proposal 

specifically concerns unitary split 

systems and heat pumps, commonly 

called central AC. These systems 

include an outdoor unit with a 

condenser and a compressor, refrigerant 

lines, an indoor unit with an evaporator, 

and ducts to carry cooled air throughout 

a building. Central heat pumps are 

similar but offer the choice to either 

heat or cool the indoor space. We are 

proposing that certain flammable 

refrigerants would be listed as 

unacceptable for retrofit use in this type 

of equipment. 

We are not currently proposing that 

the unacceptability determination for 

certain flammable refrigerants applies to 

other types of residential AC and heat 

pump equipment, but we may do so in 

the future. The presence of a proposal 

for a single type of equipment within 

this end-use or listings finding certain 

substitutes acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in a specific type of 

equipment does not imply that other 

uses are acceptable (e.g., listing as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions in 

new equipment does not mean retrofit 

use is acceptable). Other types of 

residential AC and heat pump 

equipment not included in this 

proposed unacceptability determination 

include: 

• Multi-split air conditioners and 

heat pumps. These systems include one 

or more outdoor unit(s) with a 

condenser and a compressor and 

multiple indoor units, each of which is 

connected to the outdoor unit by 

refrigerant lines. For ductless multi-split 

systems, the cooled air exits directly 

from the indoor unit rather than being 

carried through ducts. 

• Mini-split air conditioners and heat 

pumps. These systems include an 

outdoor unit with a condenser and a 

compressor and a single indoor unit that 

is connected to the outdoor unit by 

refrigerant lines. Cooled air exits 

directly from the indoor unit rather than 

being carried through ducts. 

• Packaged outdoor air conditioners 

and heat pumps. These systems include 

an outdoor unit with a condenser and a 

compressor and a heating assembly, 

often used on top of the roof of a 

building such as a commercial office 

building or apartment building. These 

units carry cool air to the inside of the 

building through ducts, so they are not 

completely self-contained units; 

however, the refrigerant remains within 

the packaged unit, thus reducing the 

chance of leaks from refrigerant lines. 

• Window air conditioners and heat 

pumps. These are self-contained units 

that fit in a window with the condenser 

extending outside the window. 

• Packaged terminal air conditioners 

(PTACs) and packaged terminal heat 

pumps (PTHP). These are self-contained 

units that consist of a separate, unencased combination of heating and 

cooling assemblies mounted through a 

wall. 

• Portable room air conditioners and 

heat pumps. These are self-contained, 

factory-sealed, single package units that 

are designed to be moved easily from 

room to room and are intended to 

provide supplemental cooling within a 

room. These units typically have wheels 

or casters for portability and have a fan 

which operates continuously when the 

unit is on. Portable room air 

conditioners and heat pumps may 

contain an exhaust hose that can be 

placed through a window or door to 

eject heat to the outside. 

Compared to self-contained AC 

equipment such as window air 

conditioners, PTAC, PTHP, and portable 

room air conditioners, unitary split AC 

systems and heat pumps are much more 

likely to have a refrigerant release due 

to having larger charge sizes, more 

locations that are prone to leak, and 

because they are more likely to require 

servicing by a technician. A higher risk 

of refrigerant releases and a potential for 

larger releases and higher concentration 

releases results in higher risk that 

flammable refrigerant could be ignited 

from unitary split AC systems and heat 

pumps compared to self-contained 

equipment. 

EPA is aware of a number of 

situations where companies have sold 

highly flammable refrigerants for use in 

residential AC that have not been 

submitted to SNAP for review. EPA has 

conducted enforcement actions against 

companies that have sold such 

substitutes in violation of EPA’s 

regulations.68 EPA is aware of multiple 

cases, where people and property using 

the ‘‘22a’’ refrigerant in a residential AC 

system were harmed in explosions and 

fires, in part because the person 

servicing the AC system was not aware 

that the system contained a highly 

flammable refrigerant. Considering this 

demonstration of the flammability risks 

of retrofitting residential AC systems as 

well as the lack of risk mitigation 

available for existing equipment (e.g., 

charge limits, design for reduced 

leakage), EPA is proposing to list R-22a, 

22a, and other similar liquified 

petroleum gases as unacceptable, as 

well as refrigerants with a flammability 

classification of 3 in ASHRAE 34–2013. 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

EPA is proposing that the following 

flammable refrigerants be listed as 

unacceptable for retrofits in unitary split 

AC systems and heat pumps: 

• All refrigerants identified as 

flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2013. 

• All refrigerants meeting the criteria 

for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 34–2013. These 

include, but are not limited to, 

refrigerant products sold under the 

names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a 

refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, 

DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze 22a, 

EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 

22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, OzChill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 

22a. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 

assigns a safety group classification for 

each refrigerant which consists of two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22834 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

69ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2013: Designation and Safety Classification of 

Refrigerants. 

70ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15– 

2013: Designation and Safety Classification of 

Refrigerants. 

alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or 

B1). The capital letter indicates the 

toxicity and the numeral denotes the 

flammability. ASHRAE classifies Class 

A refrigerants as refrigerants for which 

toxicity has not been identified at 

concentrations less than or equal to 400 

parts per million (ppm) by volume, 

based on data used to determine TLV– 

TWA or consistent indices. Class B 

signifies refrigerants for which there is 

evidence of toxicity at concentrations 

below 400 ppm by volume, based on 

data used to determine TLV–TWA or 

consistent indices. The refrigerants are 

also assigned a flammability 

classification of 1, 2, or 3. Tests are 

conducted in accordance with ASTM 

E681 using a spark ignition source at 60 

°C and 101.3 kPa.69 Figure 1 in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 15–2013 uses the 

same safety group but limits its 

concentration to 3,400 ppm.70

The flammability classification ‘‘1’’ is 

given to refrigerants that, when tested, 

show no flame propagation. The 

flammability classification ‘‘2’’ is given 

to refrigerants that, when tested, exhibit 

flame propagation, have a heat of 

combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg 

(8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), 

and have a LFL greater than 0.10 kg/m3. 

Refrigerants within flammability 

classification 2 may optionally be 

designated in the LFL subclass ‘‘2L’’ if 

they have a maximum burning velocity 

of 10 cm/s or lower when tested at 

23.0 °C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability 

classification ‘‘3’’ is given to refrigerants 

that, when tested, exhibit flame 

propagation and that either have a heat 

of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 

BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/ 

m3 or lower. Thus, refrigerants with 

flammability classification ‘‘3’’ are 

highly flammable while those with 

flammability classification ‘‘2’’ are less 

flammable and those with flammability 

classification ‘‘2L’’ are mildly 

flammable. For both toxicity and 

flammability classifications, refrigerant 

blends are designated based on the 

worst-case of fractionation determined 

for the blend (which may be different 

when evaluating toxicity than when 

evaluating flammability). 

Refrigerants with a flammability 

classification of 3 identified by 

ASHRAE in ASHRAE 34–2013 include 

the HCs R-1150 (ethylene), R-170 

(ethane), R-1270 (propylene), R-290 

(propane), R-50 (CH4), R-600 (n-butane), 

R-600a (isobutane), R-601 (n-pentane), 

and R-601a (isopentane); the HC blends 

R-433A, R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, R436B, R-441A, and R-443A; and the 

refrigerant blends R-429A, R-430A, R431A, R-432A, R-435A, and R-511A. All 

but one of these refrigerants contain 

HCs, with some also containing the 

flammable compounds dimethyl ether 

and HFC-152a. 

In addition to refrigerants specifically 

identified in the ASHRAE 34–2013 

standard as having a flammability 

classification of 3, EPA is proposing that 

refrigerants meeting the criteria of that 

standard are unacceptable. In other 

words, refrigerants are unacceptable if 

they exhibit flame propagation and 

either have a heat of combustion of 

19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or 

an LFL of 0.10 kg/m3 or lower, when 

tested in accordance with ASTM E681 

using a spark ignition source at 60 °C 

and 101.3 kPa. We are aware of a 

number of refrigerant products sold over 

the internet aimed at the market for 

retrofit usage in refrigeration and AC 

equipment using HCFC-22 with names 

containing ‘‘22a,’’ such as R-22a, Blue 

Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 

22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze 

22a, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, 

Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and RED TEK 22a. 

EPA has analyzed one of these 

refrigerants and determined that it 

contained propane mixed with a pinescented odorant. These refrigerants are 

also identified as flammable in their 

Safety Data Sheets and are often 

identified as ‘‘liquified petroleum 

gases.’’ Although none of these liquified 

petroleum gas refrigerants have been 

submitted to SNAP for review, EPA 

expects that they all are comparable in 

their flammability to propane and other 

refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE 

flammability classification of 3. It is our 

understanding these refrigerants are all 

of the same or similar composition, are 

produced by only one or two facilities 

using the same process, and then are 

marketed under different names. 

We request comment on whether we 

should list as unacceptable both any 

refrigerant that meets the criteria in 

ASHRAE 34–2013 for a flammability 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP18AP16.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22835 

71EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

72 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 

Substitute: R-443A. 

classification of 3 and those refrigerants 

currently identified in the ASHRAE 

standard with a flammability 

classification of 3. We also request 

comment on whether the listing 

decision should specifically describe 

the criteria, i.e., ‘‘Any refrigerant that (1) 

exhibits flame propagation when tested 

by ASTM E681 at standard temperature 

and pressure and at 60 °C and (2) that 

either has a heat of combustion of 

19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or 

has an LFL of 0.10 kg/m3 or lower.’’ 

ii. How do these proposed unacceptable 

refrigerants compare to other 

refrigerants for these end-uses with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks (e.g., 

flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 71 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

EPA has listed a number of 

alternatives as acceptable for retrofit 

usage in unitary split AC systems and 

heat pumps. All of the listed 

alternatives are HFC blends, with some 

containing small percentages 

(approximately five percent or less) of 

HCs. Specific blends include: R-125/

134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/

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

R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, 

R-427A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and 

RS-44 (2003 composition). These blends 

are all non-ozone-depleting. As shown 

in Table 3, they have GWPs ranging 

from approximately 1,770 for R-407C to 

3,990 for R-507A. Knowingly venting or 

releasing these refrigerants is limited by 

the venting prohibition under section 

608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1). The HFC components of 

these refrigerant blends are excluded 

from the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS, while 

the HC components are VOC. 

TABLE 3—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANTS COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS FOR

RETROFIT IN EXISTING EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AC (UNITARY SPLIT AC SYSTEMS AND

HEAT PUMPS) 1234

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013.

2–120 0 Yes 3 ................................ Unacceptable. 

All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability 

Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, including, but not limited 1, to the products named R22a, 22a, Blue Sky22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze 

EF-22a, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22, Frost 

22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, OZ-Chill 22a, 

Priority Cool, and RED TEK22a.

2–120 0 Yes 3 ................................ Unacceptable. 

R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-421A, R-427A, 

R-507A.

1,770–3,990 0 No .................................... No change. 

Hot Shot 2, R-125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/1.9), R125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-427A, 

R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).

1,810–3,390 0 Yes 4 ................................ No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 

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

production and consumption. 3The entire refrigerant or most of the constituents are VOC. 

4One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

Both the currently acceptable 

refrigerants and those proposed to be 

unacceptable are non-ozone depleting. 

The refrigerants proposed to be 

unacceptable would result in higher 

VOC emissions than the acceptable 

refrigerants, with the saturated HCs 

(e.g., propane, isobutane) having a low 

impact and unsaturated HCs (e.g., 

propylene) having a significant impact 

(see section VI.A.1.b.i above. The 

refrigerants proposed to be unacceptable 

have significantly lower GWPs than the 

refrigerants that would remain 

acceptable. 

(b) Flammability 

All refrigerants currently listed as 

acceptable in this end-use are 

nonflammable, resulting in no risk of 

fire or explosion from flammability of 

the refrigerant. In comparison, ASHRAE 

Class 3 refrigerants are highly 

flammable. As discussed further below 

in section VI.A.3.b.iii.(b), EPA analyzed 

the flammability impacts of one 

ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerant, R-443A, 

and found that a release of the entire 

refrigerant charge inside a building from 

a unitary split AC system or heat pump 

could result in surpassing the LFL.72

Because of the large charge sizes 

required for this type of equipment and 

the similar LFLs for other ASHRAE 

Class 3 refrigerants, it is likely the LFL 

would be surpassed for other ASHRAE 

Class 3 refrigerants. Fires and harm to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22836 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

73 Ibid. 

74EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we 

review and list refrigerants with specific 

compositions (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994). To 

people and property have already 

occurred in multiple cases due to 

retrofit or drop-in use of R-22a and 

similar products in existing unitary split 

AC systems. 

(c) Toxicity 

The HFC components of acceptable 

substitutes in this end-use, as well as 

the HFC components of the 

unacceptable refrigerant blends have 

exposure limits, such as WEELs from 

the AIHA or manufacturer acceptable 

exposure limits, of 1,000 ppm on an 8- 

hr TWA and the HC components of both 

the acceptable refrigerants and those 

proposed unacceptable have exposure 

limits ranging from 500 to 1,000 ppm (8- 

hr TWA for TLVs from ACGIH and 10- 

hr TWA for recommended exposure 

limits (RELs) from NIOSH). Both the 

acceptable refrigerants and the proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants are able to be 

used be used in this end-use in 

accordance with their respective 8-hr or 

10-hr workplace exposure limits. Acute 

exposure may also be of concern during 

use in unitary split AC systems and heat 

pumps because of possible exposure to 

consumers in the event of a sudden 

release. The currently acceptable 

refrigerants typically have high acute 

exposure limits for their components 

based upon cardiotoxic effects of 

halocarbons over 10,000 ppm (e.g., 

350,000 cardiotoxic no-observed 

adverse effect level for HFC-32 over 5 

minutes) or have components with 

STELs or AEGLs (e.g., 8,000 ppm 10- 

minute AEGL–1 for HFC-134a 

component). Acute exposure limits for 

components of the ASHRAE Class 3 

refrigerants are comparable or lower, 

ranging from 1,500 ppm (e.g., excursion 

limit for propylene) to 6,900 ppm 

(AEGL–1 over 30 minutes for propane). 

Because of the large charge sizes 

required for this type of equipment and 

somewhat lower acute exposure limits 

for the hydrocarbon components of 

ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants, acute 

exposure could be a concern for specific 

refrigerants. For example, as discussed 

further below in section VI.A.3.b.iii.(c), 

EPA analyzed the toxicity impacts of the 

propylene component of R-443A, and 

found that a catastrophic leak of that 

refrigerant inside a building from a 

unitary split AC system or heat pump 

resulted in estimated exposure levels at 

least four-fold that of the 1,500 ppm 

acute exposure limit.73

At this time, the potential reduced 

climate risks from using a highly 

flammable refrigerant with lower GWP 

does not outweigh the flammability 

risks of using these refrigerants in 

existing equipment that was designed 

for nonflammable refrigerants. In 

addition to flammability risk, in at least 

some cases, acute exposure limits of the 

proposed unacceptable refrigerants may 

be more difficult to attain than those for 

acceptable refrigerants in this end-use. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that the highly 

flammable refrigerants proposed to be 

unacceptable pose greater overall risk to 

human health and the environment than 

other substitutes for retrofit in the 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps end-use. However, the 

Agency may look back at these end-uses 

for other reasons if we receive 

information on how risks from the 

refrigerants proposed for listing as 

unacceptable can be sufficiently 

mitigated, we may reconsider any final 

action listing these refrigerants as 

unacceptable in this end use. 

iv. When would the listings apply? 

EPA proposes that these listings 

would apply 30 days after the date of 

publication of a final rule. To date, only 

one of these substitutes have been 

submitted to EPA for this end-use and 

this submission is currently incomplete. 

Thus, under 40 CFR 82.174, 

manufacturers are prohibited from 

introducing them into interstate 

commerce for this end-use. Thus, 

manufacturers and service technicians 

should not be currently using these 

substitutes in the manner that would be 

prohibited by this proposed listing 

decision. Further, a date or 30 days after 

the date of publication of a final rule, 

the same as the proposed effective date 

of this regulation, would protect 

technicians and consumers from the 

risks of these substitutes at the earliest 

opportunity. 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

EPA is not aware of other federal rules 

that would apply to the use of these 

flammable refrigerants for retrofits in 

existing unitary split AC systems and 

heat pumps. 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on our proposal to list 

as unacceptable for retrofit use in 

existing unitary split AC systems and 

heat pumps all refrigerants identified as 

flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2013 and all refrigerants 

meeting the criteria for flammability 

Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2013, including, but not limited to, 

refrigerant products sold under the 

names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a 

refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, 

DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze 22a, 

EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 

22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, OzChill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 

22a. The agency also requests comment 

on the proposed decision to list these 

substitutes as unacceptable 30 days after 

the date of publication of a final rule, 

and any additional technical 

information on how risks from the 

refrigerants proposed for listing as 

unacceptable can be sufficiently 

mitigated. 

b. Proposed Listing of Propylene and R443A as Unacceptable for New 

Residential and Light Commercial AC 

and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage 

Warehouses, and Centrifugal and 

Positive Displacement Chillers 

EPA is proposing to list the 

refrigerants propylene (R-1270) and R443A as unacceptable in new equipment 

in residential and light commercial AC 

and heat pumps, cold storage 

warehouses, and centrifugal and 

positive displacement chillers for 

commercial comfort AC. 

i. What are the affected end-uses? 

The refrigeration and AC end-uses 

addressed in this action include: 

Æ Centrifugal and positive 

displacement chillers; 

Æ residential and light commercial 

AC and heat pumps, including both selfcontained units (e.g., window air 

conditioners, PTACs and PTHPs, 

portable AC units) and split systems; 

and 

Æ cold storage warehouses. 

EPA has received a submission for R443A in new residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps and for 

new window air conditioners, a subset 

of that end-use. We have also received 

a submission for propylene for use in 

new chillers for commercial comfort AC 

(centrifugal and positive displacement 

chillers) and for cold storage 

warehouses. Because the two 

refrigerants, R-443A and propylene, 

have similar properties and risk profiles, 

we reviewed both refrigerants for all 

four end-uses. 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

Propylene, also known as propene or 

R-1270, is a HC with three carbons, the 

chemical formula C3H6, and the CAS 

Reg. No. 115–17–1. R-443A is a HC 

blend 74 consisting of 55 percent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22837 

the extent possible, we follow ASHRAE’s 

designations for refrigerants. Blends of refrigerants 

must be reviewed separately. For example, we 

consider each blend of propane with isobutane to 

be a different and unique refrigerant, and each 

would require separate submission, review and 

listing. 75EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

76We assume that substitutes containing no 

chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. 

77EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

78Under EPA’s phaseout regulations, virgin 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing 

HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to service 

existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, 

HCFC-142b and blends containing HCFC-22 or 

HCFC-142b may not be used to manufacture new 

pre-charged appliances or appliance components or 

to charge new appliances assembled onsite. 

Substitutes containing these HCFCs have ODPs 

ranging from 0.01 to 0.065. Class I and II ODS 

historically used as refrigerants in these end-uses 

have ODPs that range from 0.01 to 1.0. 

79 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. 

propylene, 40 percent propane, and five 

percent isobutane by weight. 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for these end-uses 

with respect to SNAP criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks (e.g., 

flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 75 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

Propylene and R-443A have an ODP 

of zero. Many acceptable substitutes in 

the refrigeration and AC end-uses 

addressed in this proposed rule also 

have an ODP of zero (e.g., HFCs, HFOs, 

CO2, ammonia, HCs, and not-in-kind 

technologies).76 Of the acceptable 

refrigerants having an ODP, they have 

ODPs ranging from 0.00024 to 0.047.77 78

Thus, propylene and R-443A have ODPs 

comparable to or less than the ODPs of 

other alternatives in the end-uses 

proposed in this rule. 

Propylene and the components of R443A have relatively low GWPs of less 

than ten. As shown in Table 4, GWPs of 

acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses 

range from zero to 3,990, depending on 

the specific end-use. (Elsewhere in this 

proposal, we propose to find 

unacceptable a number of higher GWP 

blends for use in new chillers and new 

cold storage warehouses; if that portion 

of this proposed rule was finalized as 

proposed, the highest GWP for any 

acceptable refrigerant in new chillers 

would be 630 and in new cold storage 

warehouses would be approximately 

1,830.) The GWPs of propylene and R443A are comparable to or higher than 

those of CO2, propane, isobutane, R441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and 

not-in-kind technologies such as Stirling 

cycle, water/lithium bromide 

absorption, dessicant cooling, or 

evaporative cooling, each of which is 

acceptable in new equipment for one or 

more of the four proposed end-uses. In 

addition, propylene and R-443A have 

lower GWPs than those of ODS 

historically used in these end-uses, 

CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP 

= 1,810); and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).79

TABLE 4—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF PROPYLENE AND R-443A COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN NEW

EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AC AND HEAT PUMPS, COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES, CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS AND POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 1234

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Propylene, R-443A ................................................................................. 2–3 0 ......................... Yes ..................... Unacceptable. 

New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps 

HFC-32 3, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-507A.675–3,990 0 ......................... No ...................... No change. 

R-290 3, R-441A3, THR-03 3, R-125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/

1.9), R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).

3–3,390 0 ......................... Yes 4 .................. No change. 

New Cold Storage Warehouses 

CO2, R-450A, R-513A ............................................................................ 1–630 0–0.040 .............. No ...................... No change. 

IKON A, IKON B, RS-24 (2002 composition), RS-44, SP34E, THR-02, 

THR-03, THR-04.

30–1,825 0 ......................... Yes 4 .................. No change. 

New Centrifugal Chillers 

Ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, R450A, R-513A.0–630 0–0.00034 .......... No ...................... No change. 

IKON A, IKON B, THR-02 ...................................................................... 30–920 Not public ........... Yes 4 .................. No change. 

New Positive Displacement Chillers 

Ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A ......................................... 0–631 0 ......................... No ...................... No change. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

80 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

81 Ibid. 

82 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

83The standard has recently been lowered to 70 

ppb (80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). 

84 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 

Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

85 Ibid. 

TABLE 4—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF PROPYLENE AND R-443A COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN NEW

EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AC AND HEAT PUMPS, COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES, CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS AND POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 1234—Continued 

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

IKON B, THR-02 ..................................................................................... 0–920 0 ......................... Yes 4 .................. No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 

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

production and consumption. 3 Listed only for use in room AC units. 

4One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

In addition to global impacts on the 

atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential 

impacts of propylene and the 

components of R-443A on local air 

quality. Propylene and the three 

components of R-443A, propylene, 

propane and isobutane are not excluded 

from the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

However, there is a significant 

difference in the photochemical 

reactivity between propylene and the 

other two HCs. Propylene, because it 

has an unsaturated double bond 

between two carbons, is significantly 

more reactive in the atmosphere than 

propane, the saturated HC with the 

same number of carbon atoms, and 

isobutane. For example, the Maximum 

Incremental Reactivity (MIR) of 

propylene, in gram ozone per gram of 

the substance, is 11.57 while the MIR of 

propane is 0.56 g O3/g and the MIR of 

isobutane is 1.34 g O3/g.80 Thus, 

propylene is roughly 21 times more 

reactive than propane and roughly nine 

times more reactive than isobutane for 

the same mass. Propylene is also more 

than 100 times more reactive than HFC134a (MIR < 0.1) and a number of other 

HFCs acceptable for these end-uses and 

is significantly more reactive than 

unsaturated halogenated substitutes in 

these end-uses, such as HFO-1234yf 

(MIR = 0.28), HFO-1234ze(E) (MIR = 

0.098), or trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice TM

1233zd(E)) (MIR = 0.040). 

Based on analyses described below, 

EPA estimates that potential emissions 

of saturated HCs if used as refrigerant 

substitutes in all end-uses in the 

refrigeration and AC sector would have 

little impact on local air quality, while 

emissions of propylene, including 

propylene from R-443A, could have a 

significant negative impact.81

EPA analyzed a number of scenarios 

to consider the potential impacts on 

local air quality if HC refrigerants were 

used widely. We used EPA’s Vintaging 

Model to estimate the HC emissions 

from these scenarios and EPA’s 

Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model to assess their potential 

incremental contributions to groundlevel ozone concentrations.82 The first 

analysis assumed that all refrigerant 

used was emitted to the atmosphere, as 

it could be if refrigerants were exempted 

from the venting prohibition of CAA 

section 608. In that highly conservative 

scenario, the model predicted that the 

maximum increase in the 8-hour 

average ground-level ozone 

concentration would be 0.72 parts per 

billion (ppb) in Los Angeles if the most 

reactive saturated HC, isobutane, were 

the only refrigerant and it was all 

emitted to the atmosphere. If the 

unsaturated HC propylene was assumed 

to be the only refrigerant used in 

equipment and it was all emitted (if it 

were to be exempted from the venting 

prohibition under CAA section 608), the 

model predicted that the maximum 

increase in the 8-hour average groundlevel ozone concentration would be 6.61 

ppb in Los Angeles, which is the area 

with the highest level of ozone pollution 

in the United States. For purposes of 

comparison, the ground-level ozone 

limit under the NAAQS has been 75 ppb 

since 2008.83 We have concerns that 

widespread emissions of propylene 

from use as a refrigerant could interfere 

with the ability of some nonattainment 

areas to reach attainment, both with the 

2008 NAAQS and the new, more 

stringent standard. 

EPA also performed less conservative 

analyses that considered the end-uses 

where these refrigerants would more 

likely be used, based upon submissions 

received and upon end-uses where there 

are industry standards addressing the 

use of flammable refrigerants. Propylene 

was previously listed as an acceptable 

substitute in industrial process 

refrigeration. EPA has received 

submissions for use of R-443A in 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps and window air 

conditioners. We have received a SNAP 

submission for use of propylene in cold 

storage warehouses and in commercial 

comfort AC in chillers, and have 

received inquiries about using 

propylene in retail food refrigeration. In 

addition, EPA is aware that UL has 

developed standards addressing use of 

flammable refrigerants in stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment and 

coolers; vending machines; water 

coolers; commercial ice machines; 

household refrigerators and freezers; 

and room air conditioners; and is 

currently developing revisions to UL 

1995 for residential AC equipment. 

Thus, we considered scenarios where 

propylene would be used and emitted 

(1) in all stationary AC and refrigeration 

end-uses, but excluding MVAC, (2) in 

all refrigeration end-uses and all AC 

end-uses except for MVAC and chillers 

for commercial comfort AC. For further 

details on the scenarios and end-uses in 

the analysis, see the docket for this 

rulemaking.84

Based on this still conservative 

assessment of refrigerant use, we found 

that if all the refrigerant in appliances 

in the end-uses analyzed were to be 

emitted, there would be a worst-case 

impact of 4.47 ppb ozone in the Los 

Angeles area. In the other cities 

examined in the analysis, Houston and 

Atlanta, which have also had 

historically high levels of ambient 

ozone, impacts were smaller (as much 

as 0.67 and 0.39 ppb, respectively).85

Approximately 72–73 percent of the 

emissions were estimated to come from 

the residential and light commercial AC 

and heat pumps end-use in those less 

conservative analyses, indicating that 

emissions from this end-use could have 

a particularly large impact. Both the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22839 

86The analysis assumed that local and state safety 

regulations required recovery of refrigerant from 

commercial comfort air conditioning equipment. 

87 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 

Substitute: R-443A. 

88 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 

Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

89 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 

Substitute: R-443A. 

90 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 

Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

91A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to 

Incompleteness Letter from A.S. Trust & Holdings 

to EPA—Sent March 7, 2014. 

92Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene. 

93 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 

Substitute: R-443A. 94 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 

Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 

Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 95 Ibid. 

most conservative as well as the less 

conservative but more probable 

assessments indicated there could be 

significant air quality impacts of these 

refrigerants if they are released to the 

atmosphere. 

A more recent analysis specifically 

examining use of R-443A and propylene 

in residential and light commercial AC 

and heat pumps, cold storage 

warehouses, and commercial comfort 

AC (centrifugal and positive 

displacement chillers) found noticeable 

impacts from these end-uses. If 

propylene were the only refrigerant in 

these end-uses and it was emitted from 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps and cold storage 

warehouses,86 the analysis indicated 

there would be a worst-case impact of 

4.45 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, 

1.21 ppb in Houston, and 0.65 in 

Atlanta, respectively.87 88 Assuming that 

propylene were used in all cold storage 

warehouses and centrifugal and positive 

displacement chillers; room air 

conditioners could use either R-443A or 

the currently listed VOC refrigerants 

propane or R-441A; other residential 

and light commercial AC and heat 

pumps all used R-443A; and these 

refrigerants were all emitted from cold 

storage warehouses and residential and 

light commercial AC and heat pumps, 

there would be a worst-case impact of 

2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area, 

0.77 ppb in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in 

Atlanta, respectively.89 90

Propylene and R-443A in the 

proposed end-uses would be subject to 

the CAA section 608 venting prohibition 

unless EPA were to issue a final rule 

specifically exempting them; EPA is not 

proposing such an exemption in this 

rulemaking. While potential air quality 

impacts of propylene and R-443A would 

likely be reduced through the CAA 

section 608 venting prohibition, we do 

not consider this sufficient to mitigate 

the risks of these refrigerants in the 

proposed end-uses, particularly in light 

of their photochemical reactivity and 

toxicity. EPA is not aware of 

commercially available recovery 

equipment for flammable refrigerants 

(e.g., built with spark-proof components 

and other features to reduce 

flammability risks), and without such 

equipment, emissions could occur. 

Further, other emissions could occur 

that are not subject to the venting 

prohibition and no equipment is free of 

refrigerant emissions. Because of the 

reactivity of these refrigerants, those 

emissions could interfere with the 

ability of some nonattainment areas to 

reach attainment, both with the 2008 

NAAQS and the new, more stringent 

standard. 

Ecosystem effects, primarily effects on 

aquatic life, of the substitutes are 

expected to be small as are the effects 

of other acceptable substitutes. 

Propylene, propane and isobutane are 

all highly volatile and would evaporate 

or partition to air, rather than 

contaminate surface waters. Neither 

propylene nor R-443A pose a greater 

risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than 

those of other substitutes for these uses. 

(b) Flammability 

Propylene and R-443A are both 

designated as A3 refrigerants according 

to ASHRAE 34–2013 and subsequent 

addenda. Thus, their flammability is 

comparable to that of ethane, propane, 

isobutane, and R-441A, other 

refrigerants that EPA has listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

a number of end-uses (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 

10, 2015). 

Due to their flammable nature, 

propylene and R-443A could pose a 

significant safety concern for workers 

and consumers if they are not properly 

handled. In the presence of an ignition 

source (e.g., static electricity spark 

resulting from closing a door, using a 

torch during service, or a short circuit 

in wiring that controls the motor of a 

compressor), an explosion or a fire 

could occur when the concentration of 

refrigerant exceeds its LFL. The LFLs of 

the substitutes are: 2.03 percent for R443A 91 and 2.0 percent for propylene.92

To determine whether flammability 

would be a concern for manufacturing 

and service personnel or for consumers, 

EPA analyzed a plausible worst-case 

scenario to model a catastrophic release 

of the refrigerants. The worst-case 

scenario analysis for each refrigerant 

revealed that even if the full charge of 

a window AC unit is emitted within one 

minute, neither of these refrigerants 

reached their respective LFLs. However, 

for larger residential AC systems, such 

as for a unitary split AC system, charges 

are significantly higher, and a 

catastrophic leak of refrigerant inside a 

building could result in surpassing the 

LFL.93 94 For chillers, our risk screen 

found that an instantaneous release of 

the entire charge of propylene from a 

small chiller (charge size of around 12 

kg) would not exceed the LFL, but 

release of larger charge sizes (e.g., 315 

kg) would result in exceeding the LFL 

by ten-fold or more.95 Thus, 

flammability would be a concern for 

equipment with large charge sizes. 

EPA also reviewed the submitters’ 

detailed assessments of the probability 

of events that might create a fire and 

engineering risk and approaches to 

avoid sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. Further information on 

these analyses and EPA’s risk 

assessments are available in public 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663. 

Manufacturing and service personnel or 

consumers may not be familiar with 

refrigeration or AC equipment 

containing a flammable refrigerant. 

Thus, additional risk mitigation would 

be appropriate. Use conditions such as 

those recently finalized for ethane, 

isobutane, propane, and R-441A could 

potentially be adopted by regulation as 

use conditions to mitigate flammability 

concerns from propylene and R-443A in 

end-uses for self-contained refrigeration 

and AC equipment such as stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration units, household 

refrigerators and freezers, vending 

machines, and room air conditioners for 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps. We further note that 

refrigerant handling equipment 

designed to be used safely with 

flammable refrigerants are not 

commercially available in the United 

States nor are standards to test and 

certify such equipment in place. 

Assuming these substitutes would not 

be exempted from the venting 

prohibition under CAA section 608 due 

to potential local air quality impacts, the 

lack of such equipment and standards 

for refrigerant recovery calls into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

96 Ibid. 

97EPA selected this value as analogous to the 

AEGL–1 of 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes for propane, 

another saturated hydrocarbon with similar 

chemical properties. 

98The Acute Emergency Guideline Limit (AEGL) 

is an emergency guideline for exposures to the 

general population (including susceptible 

populations) and is not time-weighted. It also 

considers the chemical’s flammability in addition to 

its toxicity. EPA develops a set of AEGL values for 

a substance for five exposure periods (10 and 30 

minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours and 8 hours). For each 

exposure period, three different AEGL values are 

developed to address different levels of 

toxicological impacts. Of relevance for the modeled 

scenario is the AEGL–1, which is defined as: ‘‘the 

airborne concentration, expressed as parts per 

million or milligrams per cubic meter (ppm or mg/ 

m3) of a substance above which it is predicted that 

the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 

effects. However, the effects are not disabling and 

are transient and reversible upon cessation of 

exposure.’’ While permanent toxicological effects 

are not expected up to the AEGL–2 value, this limit 

is not relevant for this analysis because at that level, 

flammability would be a greater concern. 

99There are no short term exposure limits 

available for propylene (e.g., AEGL–1, NIOSH 

STEL, ACGIH STEL). This compound is sufficiently 

different chemically from propane (e.g., contains a 

double bond) that we could not select an analogous 

AEGL. Therefore, EPA developed a short-term 

excursion limit based upon ACGIH 

recommendations. The ACGIH recommends that 

short-term exposures of chemicals not surpass three 

times the 8-hr TWA TLV over 15 minutes and at 

no time surpass five times the 8-hr TWA TLV. For 

propylene, this equates to 1,500 to 2,500 ppm. 

100 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential 

and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. 

question whether flammability risks 

could be adequately addressed through 

use conditions at this time. 

(c) Toxicity 

In evaluating potential toxicity 

impacts of propylene and R-443A on 

human health, EPA considered both 

occupational risk, and for end-uses in 

the household or in retail 

establishments, also consumer risks. 

EPA investigated the risk of 

asphyxiation and of exposure to toxic 

levels of refrigerant for a plausible 

worst-case scenario and a typical use 

scenario for each refrigerant. In the 

worst-case scenario of a catastrophic 

leak, we modeled release of the unit’s 

full charge within one minute into a 

confined space to estimate 

concentrations that might result. We 

considered a conservatively small space 

appropriate to each end-use, such as a 

small utility room of 18 m3 for a unitary 

split AC system, or a small bedroom of 

41 m3 for a room air conditioner. EPA 

used the same assumptions when 

evaluating other substitutes, such as 

CO2, HFC-32, propane and R-441A. 

To evaluate toxicity of both 

refrigerants, EPA estimated the 

maximum TWA exposure both for a 

short-term exposure scenario, with a 30- 

minute TWA exposure, and for an 8- 

hour TWA that would be more typical 

of occupational exposure for a 

technician servicing the equipment. We 

compared these short-term and longterm exposure values to relevant 

industry and government workplace 

exposure limits for propylene and the 

components of R-443A (including 

potential impurities). The modeling 

results indicate that both the short-term 

(30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) 

worker exposure concentrations would 

be below the relevant workplace 

exposure limits, such as the OSHA PEL, 

the NIOSH REL, or the ACGIH’s TLV in 

cold storage warehouses, commercial 

comfort AC equipment, and residential 

and light commercial AC and heat 

pumps.96 Because there is not an 

established short-term exposure limit 

(STEL) for propylene, propane, or 

isobutane, we considered information 

on short-term exposure such as a shortterm excursion limit based on the TLV 

or the National Research Council’s 

AEGL. The respective workplace 

exposure limits we considered for the 

various compounds, including 

components of the refrigerant blend R443A, are as follows: 

• Isobutane: 800 ppm REL on 10-hr 

TWA; 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes 

• Propane: 1,000 ppm PEL/TLV on 8- 

hr TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 30 

minutes 

• Propylene: 500 ppm TLV on 8-hr 

TWA; 1,500 ppm excursion limit over 

30 minutes 

In comparison, HFCs and the HFC 

components of acceptable substitutes in 

these end-uses, have exposure limits, 

such as WEELs from the AIHA or 

manufacturer acceptable exposure 

limits, of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hr TWA 

and the HC components of both the 

acceptable refrigerants and those 

proposed unacceptable have exposure 

limits ranging from 500 to 1,000 ppm (8- 

hr TWA for TLVs from ACGIH and 10- 

hr TWA for recommended exposure 

limits (RELs) from NIOSH). HFOs 

acceptable in centrifugal and positive 

displacement chillers have WEELs of 

800 ppm. Both the acceptable 

refrigerants and the proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants are able to be 

used in these end-uses in accordance 

with their respective workplace 

exposure limits. 

For equipment with which consumers 

might come into contact, such as 

residential air conditioners and heat 

pumps, EPA also performed a consumer 

exposure analysis. In this analysis, we 

examined potential catastrophic release 

of the entire charge of the substitute in 

one minute under a worst-case scenario. 

We did not examine exposure to 

consumers in cold storage warehouses 

and commercial comfort AC (chillers), 

since such equipment is typically used 

in workplaces where access is 

controlled and not in homes or public 

spaces. The analysis was undertaken to 

determine the 30-minute TWA exposure 

levels for the substitute, which were 

then compared to the toxicity limits to 

assess the risk to consumers. 

EPA considered toxicity limits for 

consumer exposure that reflect a shortterm exposure such as might occur at 

home or in a store or other public 

setting where a member of the general 

public could be exposed and could then 

escape. Specific toxicity limits that we 

used in our analysis of consumer 

exposure include: 

• Isobutane: 6,900 ppm over 30 

minutes 97

• Propane: 6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 30 

minutes 98

• Propylene: 1,500 ppm excursion 

limit 99 over 30 minutes 

The analysis of consumer exposure 

assumed that 100 percent of the unit’s 

charge would be released over one 

minute, at which time the concentration 

of refrigerant would peak in an enclosed 

space, and then steadily decline. 

Refrigerant concentrations were 

modeled under two air change 

scenarios, believed to represent the 

baseline of potential flow rates for a 

home or other public space, assuming 

flow rates of 0.11 and 0.67 ACH.100

Under the conservative assumptions 

used in the consumer exposure 

modeling, the estimated 30-minute 

consumer exposures to the refrigerants 

exceed the toxicity limits for the 

propylene component of R-443A in all 

cases but the least conservative. The 

least conservative scenario assumed the 

highest ventilation rate and the lowest 

charge size (160 g) evaluated, as well as 

assuming complete mixing of the 

refrigerant rather than stratification (i.e., 

refrigerant pooling near the floor). All of 

the other estimates of exposure 

exceeded the 1,500 ppm excursion limit 

for propylene, with estimates ranging 

from approximately 1,520 ppm to 9,700 

ppm. This occurred for lower or higher 

charge sizes ranging from 160 g to 1,500 

g; lower or higher ventilation levels of 

0.11 or 0.67 ACH; and, except for the 

smallest charge size, whether 

stratification was assumed to occur or 

not. In comparison, EPA previously 

found that a charge of 180 g of propane 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22841 

101 ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC-22 in Residential and Light Commercial Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: Propane 

(R-290). 

102 ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC-22 in Residential and Light Commercial Air 

Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: R-441A. 

in a room air conditioner could meet its 

AEGL–1 and a charge of 195 g of R-441A 

in a room air conditioner could meet the 

various short-term exposure limits for 

its components under the same 

assumptions of ventilation, 

stratification, and room size.101 102 Thus, 

EPA has concern about the exposure 

levels and toxicity of propylene and R443A in residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps. 

In comparison, the currently 

acceptable refrigerants typically have 

high acute exposure limits for their 

components based upon cardiotoxic 

effects of halocarbons over 10,000 ppm 

(e.g., 350,000 cardiotoxic no-observed 

adverse effect level for HFC-32 over 5 

minutes) or have components with 

STELs or AEGLs (e.g., 8,000 ppm 10- 

minute AEGL–1 for HFC-134a 

component). Acute exposure limits for 

propylene and R-443A’s components 

range from 1,500 ppm for propylene to 

6,900 ppm (AEGL–1 over 30 minutes for 

propane). Because of the relatively low 

acute exposure limit for propylene, 

acute exposure is a greater concern than 

for other acceptable refrigerants in 

residential and light commercial AC 

systems and heat pumps. 

In summary, EPA’s concerns about 

propylene and R-443A encompass both 

toxicity and exposure and impacts of 

these refrigerants on local air quality.103

Other acceptable refrigerants are 

available in the same end-uses that offer 

lower toxicity and air quality impacts, 

and similar flammability, GWP, and 

ODP when compared to R-443A and 

propylene. Thus, we are proposing to 

list propylene and R-443A as 

unacceptable in these end-uses because 

they pose significantly more risk than 

other available refrigerants. For further 

information, including EPA’s risk 

screens and risk assessments as well as 

information from the submitters of the 

substitutes, see docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0663. 

iv. When would the listings apply? 

EPA proposes that this listing would 

apply 30 days after the date of 

publication of a final rule. To our 

knowledge, manufacturers and service 

technicians are not currently using these 

substitutes in the proposed end-uses. 

We note that EPA has only recently 

found submissions complete for these 

substitutes, and under the SNAP 

program regulations, a substitute may 

not be introduced into interstate 

commerce prior to 90 days after EPA 

receives a complete submission. 

Further, a date of 30 days after the date 

of publication of a final rule, the same 

as the proposed effective date of this 

regulation, would protect against the 

risks of these substitutes at the earliest 

opportunity. 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

DOE has indicated its intent to issue 

a proposed energy conservation 

standard for portable air conditioners, a 

subset of the residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps end-use. For information on 

DOE’s 2015 Fall Regulatory Agenda, see 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201510&RIN=

1904-AD02. Information on other 

federal rules that may apply to 

centrifugal chillers, positive 

displacement chillers, and cold storage 

warehouses is available in sections 

VI.A.4.a.vi, VI.A.4.b.vi, and VI.A.4.c.v 

below. We note that since these two 

refrigerants are currently not being used 

in these types of equipment in the 

United States, we expect this regulation, 

if finalized as proposed, would have no 

impact on compliance with federal 

energy conservation standards. 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on our proposal to list 

the refrigerants propylene (R-1270) and 

R-443A as unacceptable in new 

equipment in residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps, cold 

storage warehouses, and centrifugal and 

positive displacement chillers for 

commercial comfort AC. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

proposed decision to list these 

refrigerants as unacceptable 30 days 

after the date of publication of a final 

rule, and the end-uses proposed here. 

4. Proposed Changes in Listing Status 

a. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Centrifugal 

Chillers 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

numerous refrigerants from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new centrifugal 

chillers: 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Centrifugal chillers (new 

only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, 

R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and THR-03.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2024, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. 

Centrifugal Chillers (new 

only).

HFC-134a ........................................................................ Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military 

marine vessels, as of January 1, 2024. 

Centrifugal Chillers (new 

only).

HFC-134a and R-404A ................................................... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for humanrated spacecraft and related support equipment, as 

of January 1, 2024. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

(a) Overview of Equipment Covered 

In the initial rule establishing the 

SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 

1994), EPA included within the 

refrigeration and AC sector the end-use 

‘‘commercial comfort air conditioning’’ 

and then elaborated on that end-use 

saying that ‘‘CFCs are used in several 

different types of mechanical 

commercial comfort AC systems, known 

as chillers.’’ EPA indicated ‘‘that over 

time, existing cooling capacity [from 

chillers] will be either retrofitted or 

replaced by systems using non-CFC 

refrigerants in a vapor compression 

cycle or by alternative technologies.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

104Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd 

chiller, June 30, 2014. This document is accessible 

at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-firstwith-1233zd-chiller/. 

105EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 106Wang 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. 107Patten 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. 108Wang 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. 

We also explained in that rule that 

vapor compression chillers can be 

categorized by the types of compressor 

used, including centrifugal, rotary, 

screw, scroll and reciprocating 

compressors. These compressor types 

are also divided into centrifugal and 

positive displacement chillers, the latter 

of which includes those with 

reciprocating, screw, scroll or rotary 

compressors. This section of the 

proposed rule covers centrifugal 

chillers. 

Centrifugal chillers are equipment 

that utilize a centrifugal compressor in 

a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. 

Centrifugal chillers are typically used 

for commercial comfort AC although 

other uses do exist. Centrifugal chillers 

can be found in office buildings, hotels, 

arenas, convention halls, airport 

terminals and other buildings. 

Centrifugal chillers tend to be used in 

larger buildings. 

For commercial comfort and some 

other applications, centrifugal chillers 

typically cool water that is then pumped 

to fan coil units or other air handlers to 

cool the air that is supplied to the 

occupied spaces transferring the heat to 

the water. The heat absorbed by the 

water can then be used for heating 

purposes, and/or can be transferred 

directly to the air (‘‘air-cooled’’), to a 

cooling tower or body of water (‘‘watercooled’’) or through evaporative coolers 

(‘‘evaporative-cooled’’). A centrifugal 

chiller or a group of centrifugal chillers 

could similarly be used for district 

cooling where the chiller plant cools 

water or another fluid that is then 

pumped to multiple locations being 

served such as several different 

buildings within the same complex. All 

such centrifugal chillers are covered by 

this section of the proposed rule. 

Centrifugal chillers are used for other 

applications besides commercial 

comfort AC and are covered under this 

section of the proposed rule. For 

instance, centrifugal chillers used to 

cool equipment, such as in data centers, 

are covered under this section of the 

proposed rule. 

(b) What other types of equipment are 

used for similar applications but are not 

covered by this section of the proposed 

rule? 

Other equipment including packaged 

rooftop units and split system air 

conditioners, both of which fall under 

the SNAP end-use ‘‘household and light 

commercial air conditioning,’’ can also 

be used for commercial comfort AC, 

typically for smaller capacity needs. 

These equipment types are not 

centrifugal chillers and hence are not 

covered under this section of the 

proposed rule. 

(c) What refrigerants are used in 

centrifugal chillers? 

Centrifugal chillers historically 

employed either CFC-11 (called ‘‘low 

pressure chillers’’) or CFC-12 (‘‘high 

pressure chillers’’), although other CFCs 

have been used, including CFC-114 and 

R-500 (a blend of CFC-12 and HFC152a). When the production and 

consumption of CFCs were phased out 

in the United States in the 1990s, 

centrifugal chillers was one of the first 

end-uses to be redesigned for alternative 

refrigerants and HCFC-123 and HFC134a became the primary refrigerants 

used in centrifugal chillers. HCFC-123 

was used in low pressure chillers while 

HFC-134a was used in high pressure 

chillers. Both of these alternatives 

continue to be used today. HCFC-22 was 

also used in some centrifugal chillers, 

primarily only in equipment produced 

before approximately the year 2000. 

HFC-245fa was also identified as a 

possible refrigerant for low pressure 

centrifugal chillers, but has found only 

limited use. 

More recently, centrifugal chillers that 

use alternatives listed as acceptable 

have been demonstrated or announced. 

For instance, one manufacturer has 

introduced centrifugal chillers using 

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

a nonflammable low-GWP refrigerant.104

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is 

proposing to change the status of the 

following refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 

R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and 

THR-03. 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

For new centrifugal chillers, 

acceptable refrigerants for which we are 

not proposing a change of status in this 

end-use include: HFO-1234ze(E), IKON 

A, IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, R-717 

(ammonia), THR-02, and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 105 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

for new centrifugal chillers may be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

The refrigerants for which we are 

proposing a change of status have an 

ODP of zero. Other alternatives also 

with an ODP of zero that we are not 

proposing a change of status for new 

centrifugal chillers include HFO1234ze(E), IKON A, IKON B, R-450A, R513A, R-717, and THR-02. Also, the 

alternative refrigerant trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of 

0.00024 to 0.00034.106 107 Estimates of 

this compound’s potential to deplete the 

ozone layer indicate that even with 

worst-case estimates of emissions, 

which assume that this compound 

would substitute for all compounds it 

could replace, the impact on global 

atmospheric ozone abundance would be 

statistically insignificant.108 Thus, the 

acceptable alternatives not subject to the 

proposed status change have ODPs 

lower than or of the same practical 

effect to the ODPs of other alternatives 

for which EPA is proposing a change of 

status, and lower than the ODPs of ODS 

historically used in this end-use. The 

refrigerants we are proposing to find 

unacceptable through this action have 

GWPs ranging from about 920 to 9,810. 

As shown in Table 6, other alternatives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22843 

109 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

acceptable for this end-use have GWPs 

ranging from zero to 630. 

TABLE 6—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Ammonia, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HFO-1234ze(E), R450A, R-513A, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.0–630 0-0.022 No .......................................... No change. 

IKON A, IKON B, THR-02 ..................................................... 30–560 0 Yes 3 ...................................... No change. 

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa .......................................................... 1,030–1,430 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, THR-03 ................................................. 920–1,220 0 Yes 3 ...................................... Unacceptable. 

R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-423A, HFC-227ea .... 1,770 –3,220 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/

1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, 

R-434A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition).

1,770 –3,250 0 Yes 3 ...................................... Unacceptable. 

HFC-236fa, R-404A, R-507A ................................................ 3,920–9,810 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 

2 HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by 

the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

One of the refrigerant blends not 

subject to the proposed status change 

(THR-02), as well as several of the 

substitutes subject to the proposed 

status change, include small amounts of 

R-290 (propane), R-600 (butane) or other 

substances that are VOCs. These 

amounts are small and for this end-use 

are not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation.109 In the actions where EPA 

listed these refrigerants as acceptable, 

EPA concluded none of these 

refrigerants in this end-use pose 

significantly greater risk to ground-level 

ozone formation than other alternative 

refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are 

specifically excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change are highly 

volatile and typically evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than 

contaminating surface waters. Their 

effects on aquatic life are expected to be 

small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 

or ecosystem effects than those of other 

refrigerants that are subject to the 

proposed status change for this end-use. 

(b) Flammability 

For the centrifugal chillers end-use, 

with the exceptions of HFO-1234ze(E) 

and R-717, all other refrigerants listed as 

acceptable, including those for which 

we are proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO1234ze(E) is non-flammable at standard 

temperature and pressure using the 

standard test method ASTM E681; 

however, at higher temperatures it is 

mildly flammable. It is classified as a 

Class 2L (lower flammability, low 

burning velocity) refrigerant under the 

standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our 

assessment and listing decision (77 FR 

47768; August 10, 2012) found that the 

overall risk, including the risk due to 

this mild flammability at elevated 

temperature, is not significantly greater 

than for other refrigerants or for the 

refrigerants we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable. 

R-717 is slightly flammable with a 

low flame speed; it is classified as a 2L 

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R717 has a long history of use in cold 

storage warehouses and other 

applications, but it is not believed to be 

used extensively in centrifugal chillers. 

In the original SNAP rule, EPA noted 

‘‘[a]mmonia has been used as a medium 

to low temperature refrigerant in vapor 

compression cycles for more than 100 

years. Ammonia has excellent 

refrigerant properties, a characteristic 

pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric 

risks, and low cost. It is, however, 

slightly flammable and toxic, although it 

is not a cumulative poison. OSHA 

standards specify a 15 minute shortterm exposure limit of 35 ppm for 

ammonia.’’ (53 FR 13072; March 18, 

1994). We further noted its use in 

various food and beverage processing 

and storage applications as well as other 

industrial applications. In that rule, we 

found R-717 acceptable for use in new 

centrifugal chillers, concluding that its 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment was not significantly 

greater than the other alternatives found 

acceptable. This conclusion was based 

on the assumption that the regulated 

community adheres to OSHA 

regulations on such use as well as 

standard refrigeration practices, such as 

the adherence to ASHRAE Standard 15, 

which is often utilized by local 

authorities when setting their own 

building and safety requirements. 

For further information, including 

EPA’s risk screens and risk assessments 

as well as information from the 

submitters of the substitutes, see docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663. 

(c) Toxicity 

The toxicity of the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable is 

comparable to that of other alternatives 

that are acceptable in this end-use, with 

the exception of R-717. R-717, for which 

we are not proposing a change of status, 

is of a higher toxicity than some other 

refrigerants and is classified as a B 

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). 

See section VI.A.4.a.iii.(b) for a 

discussion on the long history of use of 

R-717 and our original decision finding 

it acceptable in new centrifugal chillers. 

The other acceptable alternatives listed 

above that are included in ASHRAE 34 

(2013) are classified as A (lower 

toxicity) refrigerants. 

For all refrigerants, the relatively large 

charge sizes employed in centrifugal 

chillers, and the fact that some such 

chillers are placed in an enclosed 

mechanical room, raise a concern 

regarding oxygen displacement. This 

concern has been addressed over the 

long history of the use of centrifugal 

chillers, including the use of HCFC-123, 

another B refrigerant as classified by 

ASHRAE 34 (2013), by providing 

adequate ventilation, reducing leaks to 

small levels, and other techniques such 

as employing refrigerant sensors and 

automatic air movement. Commonly 

followed standards and practices have 

reduced toxicity concerns equally for 

historically used ODS, the alternatives 

for which we are proposing a status 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

change, and the alternatives for which 

we are not proposing a status change. 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the refrigerants whose status we 

are proposing to change to 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

alternatives than for the refrigerants we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable are 

significantly higher and thus pose 

significantly greater risk. 

iv. What narrowed use limits for 

military marine vessels and humanrated spacecraft and related support 

equipment is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing a narrowed use 

limit that would allow continued use of 

HFC-134a in centrifugal compressor 

chillers for military marine vessels after 

the change of status date where 

reasonable efforts have been made to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible due to performance 

or safety requirements. Under the 

narrowed use limit, the end user for this 

military application would need to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible and document the 

results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 

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

several unique performance 

requirements related to marine vessel 

air conditioning systems that require 

extensive testing prior to qualifying 

alternatives for HFC-134a. The lowerGWP alternatives available or 

potentially available for use in 

commercial chillers either do not meet 

the military-unique requirements or will 

require longer testing, based on 

available program funding for testing, 

for military suitability. It will also then 

take additional time to redesign, qualify, 

and procure new chillers for military 

shipbuilding programs. 

We anticipate that most centrifugal 

compressor chillers in military 

applications will be able to transition to 

acceptable alternatives by the proposed 

January 1, 2024 date. However, HFC134a chillers are mission-critical 

equipment on ships and submarines, 

primarily in cooling of electronics, 

sensors, and weapon systems, but also 

cooling of ship spaces for personnel. 

Failure of the chillers would disable the 

ship. The equipment is not the same as 

commercial equipment and it is located 

in confined engineering spaces near 

other critical equipment, including 

conventional and nuclear propulsion 

plants. All major components are 

designed, tested and certified for 

military use (including the compressor, 

motor, evaporator, condenser, and 

electronic controls) and must meet 

military-unique requirements: Weapons 

effect shock resistance, stringent 

electromagnetic interference resistance, 

ship vibration resistance, all weather 

pitch and roll operation, low acoustic 

signature, arctic to tropical operations 

(at temperatures from 28 °F to 105 °F), 

compact to fit in confined warship 

spaces, 40 to 50 year service life, and 

very high reliability due to extended atsea missions. Further challenges include 

installation on submarines with the 

inherent risk of refrigerant leakage and 

need for the refrigerant to be compatible 

with the submarine life support 

systems. Production for these 

equipment for naval ships and 

submarines is low volume with only 

one certified manufacturer, limited test 

facilities, and prototype hardware and 

designs shared among platforms for 

affordability and commonality. Another 

significant challenge lies in the fact that 

the testing program for the use of 

alternatives for ships has not yet been 

funded. Once funding is in place, the 

completion timeline to fund, test, 

qualify, and begin procurement on all 

Navy-unique surface ship chiller 

designs is estimated to be about ten 

years. Due to the unique challenges 

associated with submarines, including 

potential refrigerant incompatibility 

with life support systems, it may not be 

feasible to implement currently 

available alternatives being evaluated 

for surface ships. Given the limited 

population of submarine chillers, the 

resulting greenhouse gas emissions from 

refrigerant leakage in this application is 

not expected to be significant. 

EPA is proposing a narrowed use 

limit that would allow continued use of 

HFC-134a and R-404A in centrifugal 

compressor chillers for human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment applications after the change 

of status date where reasonable efforts 

have been made to ascertain that other 

alternatives are not technically feasible 

due to performance or safety 

requirements. Under the narrowed use 

limit, the end user for this human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment application would need to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible and document the 

results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 

82.180(b)(3). HFC-134a and R-404A 

chillers are used to provide cooling to 

human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment during ground-based 

assembly, integration and test 

operations, and launch. The cooling of 

sensitive human-rated electrical 

equipment is critical to the spacecraft 

technical performance and crew safety. 

EPA understands that such programs 

use specialized ground coolant systems 

to provide heat transfer during certain 

ground operations. These coolant 

circulation systems use HFC-134a and 

R-404A chillers to meet the program’s 

stringent performance and material 

compatibility requirements. Other 

alternatives currently listed as 

acceptable under the SNAP program 

have not yet been proven to provide 

appropriate heat transfer, material 

compatibility, stability in the test 

environment, and other critical 

properties necessary for use in humanrated spacecraft and related support 

equipment applications. Considering 

that identification, testing, and 

implementation of materials to be used 

in human-rated-spacecraft programs 

routinely take several years due to the 

challenging operational environment, 

lengthy qualification process associated 

with human rating, and the federal 

budgetary cycle, it may not be feasible 

to deploy centrifugal chillers using 

other alternatives in the proposed 

timeframe. Given the limited population 

of chillers used in human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment applications, the resulting 

greenhouse gas emissions from 

refrigerant leakage in this application is 

not expected to be significant. 

Users of a restricted agent within the 

narrowed use limits category must make 

a reasonable effort to ascertain that other 

substitutes or alternatives are not 

technically feasible. Users are expected 

to undertake a thorough technical 

investigation of alternatives to the 

otherwise restricted substitute. 

Although users are not required to 

report the results of their investigations 

to EPA, users must document these 

results, and retain them in their files for 

the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. This information includes 

descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the 

substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

v. When would the status change? 

The Agency understands that relevant 

building standards and codes are likely 

to change in 2021. These include 

ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL 60335–2–40, 

and the International Building Code. 

The Agency believes some amount of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22845 

110 Doniger, David (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek 

(AHRI), February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter 

Regarding Chiller Actions Under SNAP. 

111 DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings. 

Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/

regulations/federal-building-standards. Last 

updated February 13, 2014. 

112 DR-55 is a temporary name identifying a 

specific HFC/HFO blend. 

time will be needed to meet the 

technical challenges for a safe and 

smooth transition to alternatives 

particularly considering the complexity 

of chiller designs and the need to ensure 

energy efficiency levels are met. EPA is 

considering a range of dates from 

January 1, 2022, through January 1, 

2025, as the change of status date for 

new centrifugal chillers. Our lead 

proposal is a status change date of 

January 1, 2024, which we believe 

would allow development of designs of 

new centrifugal chillers using an 

acceptable alternative. We are aware 

that some equipment has been 

introduced with acceptable alternatives 

and that additional research and 

development is underway with these 

and other possible alternatives. 

In addition, EPA has received 

communication from representatives of 

AHRI and NRDC requesting a change of 

status date of January 1, 2025, for HFC134a, R-407C and R-410A, in all types 

of chillers.110 We are encouraged that 

the major trade organization 

representing manufacturers of chillers 

worked with the environmental nongovernmental group to develop this 

consensus agreement that all chillers 

could transition to lower-GWP 

alternatives by or before this date and 

that during this time period more and 

more models of such equipment would 

be released from individual 

manufacturers. While the letter did not 

provide detailed technical analysis or 

timelines of why this date but not an 

earlier date was offered, it did indicate 

that their recommendation ‘‘allows eight 

years from the publication of the final 

rule for industry to finish designing and 

bringing to market chillers using 

alternative refrigerants.’’ The authors 

pointed out that ‘‘this conversion [in all 

types of chillers] is anticipated to 

involve use of new 2L flammable 

refrigerants, which are severely 

restricted by current safety and building 

codes’’ and added that a 2025 date 

‘‘provides time to amend model 

building codes to accommodate these 

new refrigerants and for adoption by 

state and local jurisdictions.’’ AHRI and 

NRDC held that a January 1, 2025 

change of status date ‘‘provides 

adequate time for industry to launch 

products that have been tested and 

certified by the existing laboratories and 

certification agencies . . . globally’’ and 

emphasized that time was required to 

complete revisions to ASHRAE 

Standard 15, recertify the chillers with 

safety standards, and qualify materials 

and components to ensure low-leak, 

high-reliability products. They also said 

their recommended schedule provides 

time for manufacturers to optimize the 

energy efficiency of their products. 

vi. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

DOE has established efficiency 

requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1–2010, for chillers 

used in federal buildings.111 EPA is not 

aware of any DOE energy efficiency 

requirements for chillers used in nonfederal buildings. Although EPA is not 

aware of any federal standards that 

apply, EPA recognizes, however, that 

state and local building codes may place 

certain requirements that affect the 

desired efficiency of chillers. Many state 

and local codes reference ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. EPA’s understanding of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is that it 

provides both a prescriptive and 

performance-based measures to achieve 

compliance. Under the prescriptive 

approach, depending on the version of 

the standard, one or two ‘‘paths’’ exist 

setting specific energy efficiency 

requirements based on the type and 

capacity of the chiller. Under a 

performance-based approach, the energy 

consumption of the chiller may exceed 

the prescriptive requirements provided 

that the building as a whole meets or 

exceeds the applicable reference 

building. 

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on a range of dates 

from January 1, 2022, through January 1, 

2025, for the change of status of the 

identified substitutes. EPA requests 

comment and information on any 

potential environmental or other 

impacts of EPA adopting a date other 

than January 1, 2024, which is our lead 

option. In particular, EPA requests 

comment on whether other alternatives 

that reduce overall risk would be 

available prior to January 1, 2024 and 

for comment on any technical or other 

reasons that NRDC and AHRI proposed 

January 1, 2025 in their joint letter. EPA 

requests comment on the specific steps 

that must be undertaken to 

commercialize centrifugal chillers with 

alternative refrigerants, including the 

time each such step would take, which 

steps must occur in sequence, and 

which steps could occur in parallel. 

EPA requests comments on if and how 

this timing might vary based on the 

characteristics of the chiller, such as but 

not limited to, compressor type, 

capacity range, evaporator design, 

condenser design (e.g., air cooled or 

water cooled), and refrigerant currently 

used and potentially used. 

EPA requests comment on the current 

use of four refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed change of status, trans-1- 

chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO1234ze(E), R-450A and R-513A, in 

centrifugal chillers, including the status 

of product availability and the capacity 

range covered by such products. We 

also request comment on the on-going 

research, development, deployment and 

expected increased market penetration 

of centrifugal chillers using refrigerants 

such as trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO-1234ze(E), R290, R-450A, R-513A, DR-55,112 R-718 

and R-744. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment 

on any energy efficiency performance 

impacts of using the refrigerants not 

subject to the change of status proposed 

today that could affect the ability of 

manufacturers to meet current energy 

efficiency requirements or standards for 

centrifugal chillers in the United States. 

Also, EPA requests comment on the 

ability of centrifugal chillers using 

refrigerants other than those for which 

we are proposing a status change to 

meet those energy efficiency 

requirements or standards. In particular, 

we request comment on the specific 

steps and timing of such steps required 

to design and develop centrifugal 

chillers to meet applicable federal 

energy efficiency requirements. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

the proposed narrowed use limitation 

for chillers on military marine vessels 

and human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment where the unique 

requirements would limit the 

availability and feasible use of 

alternatives not subject to the proposed 

status change. 

b. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Positive 

Displacement Chillers 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

numerous refrigerants from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new positive 

displacement chillers: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22846 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

113Trane, 2015. Trane® SintesisTM Air-cooled 

Chillers. This document is accessible at: http://

www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/

global/products-systems/equipment/chillers/aircooled/TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf. 

114Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled Chiller with 

Climate-friendly Refrigerant DR-55, September 21, 

2015. Available at: www.ejarn.com/news.aspx

?ID=36282. 

115EPA assumes the refrigerant used is the 

stereoisomer HFO-1234ze(E) but requests comment 

on this assumption. 

116First Carrier AquaForce Chillers using HFO1234ze, August 2, 2015. www.ejarn.com/

news.aspx?ID=35619. 

117EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes Under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

TABLE 7—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Positive Displacement 

Chillers (new only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 

(2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2024 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. 

Positive Displacement 

Chillers (new only).

HFC-134a ........................................................................ Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military 

marine vessels, as of January 1, 2024. 

Positive Displacement 

Chillers (new only).

HFC-134a and R-404A ................................................... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for humanrated spacecraft and related support equipment, as 

of January 1, 2024. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

(a) Overview of Equipment Covered 

As discussed in section VI.A.4.a.i, 

vapor compression cycle chillers are 

divided into centrifugal chillers and 

positive displacement chillers. This 

section deals with positive 

displacement chillers, which are those 

that utilize positive displacement 

compressors such as reciprocating, 

screw, scroll or rotary types. Positive 

displacement chillers are applied in 

similar situations as centrifugal chillers, 

again primarily for commercial comfort 

AC, except that positive displacement 

chillers tend to be used for smaller 

capacity needs such as in mid- and lowrise buildings. 

For commercial comfort and some 

other applications, positive 

displacement chillers typically cool 

water that is then pumped to fan coil 

units or other air handlers to cool the air 

that is supplied to the occupied spaces 

transferring the heat to the water. The 

heat absorbed by the water can then be 

used for heating purposes, and/or can be 

transferred directly to the air (‘‘aircooled’’), to a cooling tower or body of 

water (‘‘water-cooled’’) or through 

evaporative coolers (‘‘evaporativecooled’’). 

Positive displacement chillers are 

used for other applications besides 

commercial comfort AC and are covered 

under this section of the proposed rule. 

For instance, positive displacement 

chillers used to cool equipment, such as 

in data centers, are covered under this 

section of the proposed rule. 

(b) What other types of equipment are 

used for similar applications but are not 

covered by this section of the proposed 

rule? 

Other equipment including packaged 

rooftop units and split system air 

conditioners, both of which fall under 

the SNAP end-use ‘‘household and light 

commercial air conditioning,’’ can also 

be used for commercial comfort AC, 

typically for even smaller capacity 

needs than positive displacement 

chillers. These equipment types are not 

positive displacement chillers and 

hence are not covered under this section 

of the proposed rule. 

(c) What refrigerants are used in positive 

displacement chillers? 

Positive displacement chillers 

historically used CFC-12, although 

HCFC-22 was also used and became 

more common after the production and 

consumption of CFC-12 were phased 

out. In accordance with CAA 605(a) and 

the implementing regulations codified 

at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, in the 

United States, the use of newly 

manufactured HCFC-22 for new positive 

displacement chillers (and other new 

equipment) ceased as of January 1, 2010. 

Both R-407C and to a larger extent R410A are used in new positive 

displacement chillers primarily in lower 

capacity ranges previously served by 

HCFC-22 chillers. HFC-134a is also used 

for new positive-displacement chillers, 

including some mid-level capacity 

water-cooled screw chillers. 

More recently, positive displacement 

chillers that use alternatives listed as 

acceptable including HFO-1234ze(E) 

and R-513A (a blend of HFC-134a and 

HFO-1234yf) have been demonstrated or 

announced. EPA is aware of air-cooled 

rotary chillers in the 115 to 500 

refrigeration ton (400 to 1,750 kW) range 

using R-513A.113 Other chiller models 

using low-GWP refrigerants have also 

been introduced; for instance an aircooled chiller using DR-55 at the IIR 

International Conference of 

Refrigeration.114 EPA also notes that a 

water-cooled screw chiller using HFO1234ze 115 has been installed in 

Europe.116

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

For new positive displacement 

chillers, EPA is proposing to change the 

status of the following refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, 

R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/

290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, 

and THR-03. 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

For new positive displacement 

chillers, acceptable refrigerants for 

which we are not proposing a change of 

status in this end-use include: HFO1234ze(E), IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, R717, and THR-02. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 117 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22847 

118 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

for new positive displacement chillers 

may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

The refrigerants for which we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable have zero ODP and GWPs 

ranging from about 920 to 3,990. As 

shown in Table 8, other alternatives for 

which we are not proposing a change of 

status in this end-use have GWPs 

ranging from zero to 630. 

TABLE 8—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A ....................... 0–630 0 No .......................................... No change. 

IKON B, THR-02 ................................................................... 30–560 0 Yes 3 ...................................... No change. 

HFC-134a .............................................................................. 1,430 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, SP34E, THR-03 .................................... 920–1,410 0 Yes 3 ...................................... Unacceptable. 

HFC-227ea, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A .................. 1,770–3,220 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/

600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition).

1,810–3,250 0 Yes 3 ...................................... Unacceptable. 

R-404A, R-507A .................................................................... 3,920–3,990 0 No .......................................... Unacceptable. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

One of the refrigerant blends not 

subject to the proposed status change 

(THR-02), as well as several of the 

substitutes subject to the proposed 

status change, include small amounts of 

R-290 (propane), R-600 (butane), or 

other substances that are VOCs. These 

amounts are small and for this end-use 

are not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation.118 In the actions where EPA 

listed these refrigerants as acceptable, 

EPA concluded none of these 

refrigerants in this end-use pose 

significantly greater risk to ground-level 

ozone formation than other alternative 

refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are 

specifically excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change are highly 

volatile and typically evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than 

contaminating surface waters. Their 

effects on aquatic life are expected to be 

small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 

or ecosystem effects than those of other 

refrigerants that are subject to the 

proposed status change for this end-use. 

(b) Flammability 

For the positive displacement chillers 

end-use, with the exception of HFO1234ze(E) and R-717, all other 

refrigerants listed as acceptable, 

including those for which we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO1234ze(E) is non-flammable at standard 

temperature and pressure using the 

standard test method ASTM E681; 

however, at higher temperatures it is 

mildly flammable. It is classified as a 

Class 2L (lower flammability, low 

burning velocity) refrigerant under the 

standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our 

assessment and listing decision (77 FR 

47768; August 10, 2012) found that the 

overall risk, including the risk due to 

this mild flammability at elevated 

temperature, is not significantly greater 

than for other refrigerants or for the 

refrigerants we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable. As noted above, a positive 

displacement chiller using this 

refrigerant has already been installed. 

R-717 is slightly flammable with a 

low flame speed; it is classified as a 2L 

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R717 has a long history of use as a 

refrigerant in positive displacement 

chillers, especially in water-cooled 

screw chillers, and other applications. 

In our evaluation finding R-717 

acceptable in this end-use, EPA noted 

‘‘Ammonia has been used as a medium 

to low temperature refrigerant in vapor 

compression cycles for more than 100 

years. Ammonia has excellent 

refrigerant properties, a characteristic 

pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric 

risks, and low cost. It is, however, 

slightly flammable and toxic, although it 

is not a cumulative poison. Ammonia 

may be used safely if existing OSHA 

and ASHRAE standards are followed’’ 

(61 FR 47015). 

(c) Toxicity 

With the exception of R-717, the 

toxicity of the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable is 

comparable to that of other alternatives 

that are acceptable in this end-use. R717, for which we are not proposing a 

change of status, is of a higher toxicity 

than some other refrigerants and is 

classified as a B refrigerant under 

ASHRAE 34 (2013). See section 

VI.A.4.b.iii.(b) for a discussion on the 

long history of use of R-717 and our 

original decision finding it acceptable in 

new positive displacement chillers. 

For all refrigerants, the possible 

relatively large charge sizes of some 

positive displacement chillers, and the 

fact that some such chillers are place in 

an enclosed mechanical room, raise a 

concern regarding oxygen displacement. 

This concern has been addressed over 

the long history of the use of positive 

displacement chillers by providing 

adequate ventilation, reducing leaks to 

small levels, and other techniques such 

as employing refrigerant sensors and 

automatic air movement. Commonly 

followed standards and practices have 

reduced toxicity concerns equally for 

historically used ODS, the alternatives 

subject to the proposed status change, 

and the alternatives not subject to the 

proposed status change. 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the refrigerants whose status we 

are proposing to change to 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22848 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

119 DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings. 

Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/

regulations/federal-building-standards. Last 

updated February 13, 2014. 

alternatives than for the refrigerants we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable are 

significantly higher and thus pose 

significantly greater risk. 

iv. What narrowed use limits for 

military marine vessels and humanrated spacecraft and related support 

equipment is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing a narrowed use 

limit that would allow continued use of 

HFC-134a in positive displacement 

compressor chillers for military marine 

vessels after the change of status date 

where reasonable efforts have been 

made to ascertain that other alternatives 

are not technically feasible due to 

performance or safety requirements. 

Under the narrowed use limit, the end 

user for this military application would 

need to ascertain that other alternatives 

are not technically feasible and 

document the results of their analysis. 

See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the 

military, there are several unique 

performance requirements related to 

marine vessel air conditioning systems 

that require extensive testing prior to 

qualifying alternatives for HFC-134a. 

The lower-GWP alternatives available or 

potentially available for use in 

commercial chillers either do not meet 

the military-unique requirements or will 

require longer timeframes to test, based 

on available program funding for 

testing, for military suitability. It will 

also then take additional time to 

redesign, qualify, and procure new 

chillers for military shipbuilding 

programs. See additional information in 

section VI.A.4.a.iv above on centrifugal 

chillers. 

EPA is proposing a narrowed use 

limit that would allow continued use of 

HFC-134a and R-404A in positive 

displacement compressor chillers for 

human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment applications after 

the change of status date where 

reasonable efforts have been made to 

ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible due to performance 

or safety requirements. Under the 

narrowed use limit, the end user for this 

human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment application would 

need to ascertain that other alternatives 

are not technically feasible and 

document the results of their analysis. 

See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). HFC-134a and 

R-404A chillers are used to provide 

cooling to human-rated spacecraft and 

related support equipment during 

ground-based assembly, integration and 

test operations, and launch. The cooling 

of sensitive human-rated electrical 

equipment is critical to the spacecraft 

technical performance and crew safety. 

EPA understands that such programs 

use specialized ground coolant systems 

to provide heat transfer during certain 

ground operations. These coolant 

circulation systems use HFC-134a and 

R-404A chillers to meet the program’s 

stringent performance and material 

compatibility requirements. Other 

alternatives currently listed as 

acceptable under the SNAP program 

have not yet been proven to provide 

appropriate heat transfer, material 

compatibility, stability in the test 

environment, and other critical 

properties necessary for use in humanrated spacecraft and related support 

equipment applications. Considering 

that identification, testing, and 

implementation of materials to be used 

in human-rated spacecraft programs 

routinely take several years due to the 

challenging operational environment, 

lengthy qualification process associated 

with human rating, and the federal 

budgetary cycle, it may not be feasible 

to deploy positive displacement chillers 

using other alternatives in the proposed 

timeframe. Given the limited population 

of chillers used in human-rated 

spacecraft and related support 

equipment applications, the resulting 

greenhouse gas emissions from 

refrigerant leakage in this application is 

not expected to be significant. 

Users of a restricted agent within the 

narrowed use limits category must make 

a reasonable effort to ascertain that other 

substitutes or alternatives are not 

technically feasible. Users are expected 

to undertake a thorough technical 

investigation of alternatives to the 

otherwise restricted substitute. 

Although users are not required to 

report the results of their investigations 

to EPA, users must document these 

results, and retain them in their files for 

the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. This information includes 

descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the 

substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

v. When would the status change? 

The Agency understands that relevant 

building standards and codes are likely 

to change in 2021. These include 

ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL 60335–2–40, 

and the International Building Code. 

The Agency believes some amount of 

time will be needed to meet the 

technical challenges for a safe and 

smooth transition to alternatives 

particularly considering the complexity 

of chiller designs and the need to ensure 

energy efficiency levels are met. EPA is 

considering a range of dates from 

January 1, 2022, through January 1, 

2025, as the change of status date for 

new positive displacement chillers. Our 

lead proposal is a status change date of 

January 1, 2024, which we believe 

would allow development of designs of 

new positive displacement chillers 

using an acceptable alternative. We are 

aware that some equipment has been 

introduced with acceptable alternatives 

and that additional research and 

development is underway with these 

and other possible alternatives. 

In addition, EPA has received 

communication from representatives of 

AHRI and NRDC requesting a change of 

status date of January 1, 2025, for HFC134a, R-407C and R-410A, in all types 

of chillers. See section VI.A.4.a.v. 

vi. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

DOE has established efficiency 

requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1–2010, for chillers 

used in federal buildings.119 See section 

VI.A.4.a.vi for more information. 

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on a range of dates 

from January 1, 2022, through January 1, 

2025, for the change of status of the 

identified substitutes. EPA requests 

comment and information on any 

potential environmental or other 

impacts of EPA adopting a date other 

than January 1, 2024, which is our lead 

option. In particular, EPA requests 

comment on whether other alternatives 

that reduce overall risk would be 

available prior to January 1, 2024 and 

for comment on any technical or other 

reasons that NRDC and AHRI proposed 

January 1, 2025 in their joint letter. EPA 

requests comment on the specific steps 

that must be undertaken to 

commercialize positive displacement 

chillers with alternative refrigerants, 

including the time each such step 

would take, which steps must occur in 

sequence, and which steps could occur 

in parallel. EPA requests comments on 

if and how this timing might vary based 

on the characteristics of the chiller, such 

as but not limited to, compressor type, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22849 

capacity range, evaporator design, 

condenser design (e.g., air cooled or 

water cooled), and refrigerant currently 

used and potentially used. EPA requests 

comment on the current use of three 

refrigerants, HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A 

and R-513A, in positive displacement 

chillers, including the status of product 

availability and the capacity range 

covered by such products. We also 

request comment on the on-going 

research, development, deployment and 

expected increased market penetration 

of positive displacement chillers using 

refrigerants such as HFO-1234ze(E), R290, R-450A, R-513A, DR-55, R-718 and 

R-744. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment 

on any energy efficiency performance 

impacts of using the refrigerants not 

subject to the change of status proposed 

today that could affect the ability of 

manufacturers to meet current energy 

efficiency requirements or standards for 

positive displacement chillers in the 

United States. Also, EPA requests 

comment on the ability of positive 

displacement chillers using refrigerants 

other than those for which we are 

proposing a status change to meet those 

energy efficiency requirements or 

standards. In particular, we request 

comment on the specific steps and 

timing of such steps required to design 

and develop positive displacement 

chillers to meet federal energy efficiency 

requirements. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

the proposed narrowed use limitation 

for chillers on military marine vessels 

and human-rated spacecraft and related 

support equipment where the unique 

requirements would limit the 

availability and feasible use of 

alternatives not subject to the proposed 

status change. 

c. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Cold Storage 

Warehouses 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

numerous refrigerants from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new cold storage 

warehouses. 

TABLE 9—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Cold Storage Warehouses (new) .... HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2023. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

Cold storage warehouses are 

temperature-controlled facilities used to 

store meat, produce, dairy and other 

products that are delivered to other 

locations for sale to the ultimate 

consumer. This end-use within the 

SNAP program describes an application 

of refrigeration equipment for an 

intended purpose, and hence the 

listings of acceptable and unacceptable 

refrigerants for this end-use apply 

regardless of the type of refrigeration 

system used. In addition to traditional 

vapor-compression cycle systems, EPA 

has found several not-in-kind systems 

acceptable for this end-use, including 

ammonia absorption, evaporative 

cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling 

cycle systems, which are not subject to 

the proposed status change. 

Cold storage warehouses are usually 

deemed ‘‘private’’ or ‘‘public,’’ 

describing the relationship between the 

owner or operator of the cold storage 

warehouse and the owner of the 

products stored within. Private cold 

storage warehouses are ones owned by 

a company for the purpose of storing its 

products; for instance, a food producer, 

processor or shipper may own and 

operate a facility as a distribution point 

for its products. Likewise, a 

supermarket chain may own and 

operate a facility to control the 

distribution of a variety of products to 

multiple stores in a given region. A 

public cold storage warehouse provides 

storage for lease and hence may receive 

and hold products from multiple 

producers and for multiple 

supermarkets or other vendors. Some 

cold storage warehouses may be both 

public and private, with one part 

dedicated to the owner’s products and 

another part available for lease. All such 

types of cold storage warehouses are 

included within the SNAP end-use. 

Cold storage warehouses are also 

often divided into two general uses: 

Those storing products at temperatures 

above 32 °F (0 °C) and those storing 

products below this temperature. The 

former is referred to as a ‘‘cooler’’ while 

the term ‘‘freezer’’ is used for the latter. 

The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of 

Refrigeration provides an additional 

cooler application called ‘‘controlled 

atmosphere for long-term fruit and 

vegetable storage’’ and three 

subdivisions of freezers: ‘‘hightemperature freezers’’ storing goods at 

27 to 28 °F (¥2.8 to ¥2.2 °C), ‘‘lowtemperature storage rooms for general 

frozen products, usually maintained at 

¥5 to ¥20 °F’’ (¥21 to ¥29 °C), and 

low-temperature storage at the same 

temperature range as before but ‘‘with a 

surplus of refrigeration for freezing 

products received at above 0 °F’’ (¥18 

°C). 

Several other end-uses under the 

SNAP program cover other parts of the 

food (and product) cold chain, and are 

distinct from the cold storage warehouse 

end-use. These are discussed here as 

examples of what EPA considers to be 

part of or separate from the ‘‘cold 

storage warehouse’’ end-use for which 

we are proposing changes of status. 

Many food products require 

refrigeration during the production 

process. The application of refrigerating 

equipment used during the production 

of food and beverages falls within the 

SNAP end-use ‘‘industrial process 

refrigeration.’’ The industrial process 

refrigeration end-use would include all 

equipment and operations (that use a 

refrigerant) used to make and prepare 

food that is not immediately available 

for sale to the ultimate consumer and 

would require shipping it, possibly 

through intermediate points, to the 

point where such sale would occur. The 

industrial process refrigeration end-use 

could be applied at facilities where food 

is processed and packaged by the food 

producer. An example could be a meat 

processor that prepares and packages 

individual cuts of meat within a single 

facility or building while maintaining 

the required temperatures within that 

facility or building. Although such 

facilities may be designed in a fashion 

similar to a cold storage warehouse, the 

fact that items are being processed by 

the food producer indicates that the 

application falls in the industrial 

process refrigeration end-use. However, 

if a food producer operates a refrigerated 

storage area solely for the holding of 

already packaged products, and possibly 

packing such products in larger 

containers or bundles for shipment, that 

application would fall under the coldstorage warehouse end-use. In the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22850 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

120ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook— 

Refrigeration. The American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978–1–936504–71–8; 

ISSN 1930–7195. 

example above, such a cold storage 

warehouse might be a facility, separate 

from the industrial process refrigeration 

system in a different facility, where the 

individually-packaged cuts of meat are 

packed in a larger container that is 

placed on a pallet and then shipped. 

Another example of an industrial 

process refrigeration system is a ‘‘blast 

cooler’’ or ‘‘blast freezer.’’ As described 

previously in a separate SNAP 

rulemaking ‘‘[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.’’ (80 FR 

42901; July 20, 2015). Such devices 

might be used as part of a food 

production line in an industrial setting. 

They also can be placed separately at 

public facilities including hospitals, 

schools, restaurants and supermarkets. 

These public facilities might use the 

blast chiller on products that they will 

store for later use after they receive 

products from a vendor or that they 

cook or prepare as part of their 

operations. Such units might also be 

placed near entranceways to cold 

storage warehouses, for instance to 

receive food shipped refrigerated at one 

temperature and bring it down to a 

lower temperature for storage. EPA does 

not consider a separate blast chiller or 

blast freezer (i.e., one with its own 

refrigerant-containing circuit, including 

the compressor, evaporator and the 

condenser or heat exchanger) to be part 

of a cold storage warehouse. Another 

design, however, could consist of a 

refrigeration system that is used to 

provide refrigerant (or a secondary fluid 

in an indirect system) to the evaporators 

extracting heat from the cold storage 

warehouse as well as to the evaporators 

used by a blast chiller or blast freezer 

that is installed at the facility. In this 

situation, EPA expects that the majority 

of the load and intended use of the 

combination system is for the cold 

storage of products, including those that 

undergo the blast cooling or freezing, 

and hence we consider the system to be 

a cold storage warehouse. For such 

systems, certain refrigerants would be 

subject to the proposed change of status 

as explained below. 

As discussed in section VI.A.4.d, 

because products from refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

are generally available for sale to the 

ultimate consumer, that end-use 

category, part of the retail food 

refrigeration end-use, is distinct from 

industrial process refrigeration. 

Another application in the food cold 

chain is the use of a ‘‘cold room’’ at a 

retail facility where refrigerated food is 

kept generally for short periods of time. 

In the July 20, 2015, final rule (80 FR 

42870), EPA changed the status of 

certain refrigerants used in ‘‘remote 

condensing units’’ and ‘‘stand-alone 

systems,’’ two categories within the 

‘‘retail food refrigeration’’ end-use that 

include equipment that can be used for 

such cold rooms. Remote condensing 

units may include a dedicated one- or 

two-compressor system with condensers 

located on a roof or the side of a 

building providing cooling through unit 

coolers to an insulated room, for 

instance in a restaurant or supermarket, 

that are built and charged with 

refrigerant at the site. Also, some cold 

rooms are stand-alone systems that are 

pre-charged at the factory and ready to 

use once placed at the retailer’s facility 

and provided with electrical and 

possibly plumbing connections, and are 

accessed via a door to store refrigerated 

products. In general, both types of 

applications are often called ‘‘walk-in 

coolers’’ or ‘‘walk-in freezers,’’ 

depending on the design temperature. 

Such cold rooms are used to store 

products at required temperatures until 

sale to the ultimate consumer, such as 

a shopper in a supermarket or a diner 

in a restaurant. In some cases, one side 

of the room is fitted with glass doors 

and racks where the owner stacks 

products on the racks and the consumer 

obtains the product from the rack. In 

other cases, the cold room is only 

accessible by employees of the retail 

food establishment. For these 

applications, even if this equipment is 

not accessible to the public—for 

instance, it is in the back of a 

supermarket and holds products that are 

later brought to display cases from 

which customers obtain the products; or 

in the back of a restaurant where a cook 

takes and prepares the food that is 

brought to the diner by a waiter—it is 

considered part of the retail 

establishment and hence is part of the 

‘‘retail food refrigeration’’ end-use and 

is not included in the ‘‘cold storage 

warehouse’’ end-use. The changes of 

status proposed in this action would not 

apply to such ‘‘cold rooms,’’ ‘‘walk-in 

coolers,’’ or ‘‘walk-in freezers;’’ 

however, EPA refers the reader to a 

previous rulemaking that does apply (80 

FR 42870; July 20, 2015). 

R-717 is believed to be the most 

common refrigerant used in cold storage 

warehouses. While R-717 is not used 

extensively in many other types of 

refrigeration and air-conditioning 

equipment, certain characteristics of 

cold storage warehouses have facilitated 

the widespread use of that refrigerant in 

this end-use. For example, because cold 

storage warehouses are often large in 

size for economies of scale reason and 

require a large amount of land use—as 

opposed to other systems that might be 

located on a building roof or a small 

slab next to the building—they are 

typically located away from population 

centers where land costs and taxes may 

be higher. Also, because they often 

service multiple retail locations and 

may receive goods from multiple 

producers, cold storage warehouses are 

often sited where major transportation 

services (i.e., highways and rail lines) 

are available and are less prone to high 

traffic delays and similar disruptions 

that are more common in population 

centers. In addition, the transportation 

of goods is typically done in large 

volumes—by truck or train—to reduce 

costs, which in turn reduces the 

workforce needed and the number of 

people at the warehouse and in 

particular near the refrigeration 

equipment. These factors allow for more 

consideration of the use of refrigerants 

that do pose toxicity and flammability 

risks, such as R-717, than in other 

applications where more people might 

be at risk, such as an office building. 

Limitations on the use of R-717 do 

exist. For example, it is reported that 

charge sizes exceeding 10,000 pounds of 

R-717 ‘‘may require governmentmandated process safety management 

(PSM) and [a] risk management plan 

(RMP)’’.120 Various state and local 

building codes could also apply and 

adherence to such codes might hinder 

or even eliminate the use of R-717 in 

some cold storage warehouses. 

Likewise, regulations may require 

employing operators with special levels 

of expertise, reporting of use or 

accidental releases, and other actions 

not typically required for other 

alternatives, increasing the operating 

cost compared to facilities using other 

refrigerants. These increased costs 

however are often offset given the high 

energy efficiencies typically achieved 

with ammonia systems. 

Some of the limitations on the use of 

R-717 in cold storage warehouses may 

be overcome with system designs that 

have been introduced or have been more 

fully explored recently. These include 

low charge packaged R-717 systems, R717/R-744 cascade systems, and indirect 

secondary-loop systems using R-717 as 

the primary refrigerant in a machine 

room separated from the cooled interior. 

These systems are described in market 

characterizations found in the docket to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22851 

121 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 2015. 

122The White House, 2015. FACT SHEET: Obama 

Administration and Private-Sector Leaders 

Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust 

Progress to Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, 

October 15, 2015. Accessible at https://www.white

house.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheetobama-administration-and-private-sector-leadersannounce. 

123EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

this proposed rule (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0663).121

Where R-717 was not used, cold 

storage warehouses traditionally used 

CFC-12, R-502 and HCFC-22. With the 

1996 CFC phaseout, and the restriction 

on the use of newly manufactured 

HCFC-22 in new equipment that took 

effect January 1, 2010, R-404A or R507A are generally used when R-717 is 

not chosen. Two nonflammable HFC/

HFO blends, R-448A and R-449A, are 

designed to perform similarly to R-404A 

and R-507A and are under investigation 

for this use. EPA also notes that a major 

retailer recently announced progress on 

implementing HFC-free food 

distribution centers.122

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

For new cold storage warehouses, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

the following refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, 

R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/

1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, 

R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, 

R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition). 

EPA understands that existing cold 

storage warehouses may undergo 

expansion to handle needs such as 

increased production, consolidation of 

distribution points, or increased 

population or other reasons for 

increased demands of the products 

stored. Such expansions could include 

a physical expansion of the storage 

space or using racking techniques to 

increase the amount of product within 

a given facility. The owner of cold 

storage warehouses undergoing such 

expansions (or the owner’s designer) 

may determine that a new system needs 

to be added. That new system could be 

a complete newly manufactured system 

separate from the existing system, or it 

could be equipment and refrigerant 

added to the existing system increasing 

the capacity of the existing system. In 

both cases, EPA considers these actions 

as the manufacturing of a new system 

and hence that equipment could be 

affected by the proposed changes of 

status, as explained further below. 

EPA addressed the difference between 

a ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘retrofit’’ system as used 

in the SNAP program in a previous rule 

(80 FR 42902–42903; July 20, 2015). As 

used in the SNAP program, ‘‘new’’ 

refers to the manufacture and often 

installation of a refrigeration system, 

which may occur on a newly 

manufactured or an existing cold storage 

warehouse. This proposed action would 

apply to expansion of the refrigeration 

system in an existing cold storage 

warehouse as being designated a ‘‘new’’ 

system if the capacity of that existing 

refrigeration system is increased to 

handle the expansion. On the other 

hand, if an existing refrigeration system 

is extended (for instance, by adding 

additional refrigerant lines and 

evaporators to a newly manufactured or 

newly commissioned building, to a 

portion of the existing facility 

previously not used for cold storage, or 

to an extension of the previous 

building), without requiring an increase 

in capacity, the system is not considered 

‘‘new’’ and hence may continue its 

operations with the existing refrigerant. 

Likewise, a facility may increase the 

amount of products it handles while at 

the same time providing better sealing 

around infiltration points and/or 

increasing the insulation on walls and 

roofs, and thereby avoid the need to 

increase the refrigeration capacity of the 

equipment serving the cold storage 

warehouse. EPA requests comment on 

the definition of ‘‘new’’ and how it 

applies to cold storage warehouses. In 

particular, EPA requests comments on 

the likelihood and frequency that 

existing cold storage warehouses are 

expanded and whether it is typical to 

utilize or expand the existing 

refrigeration system to address the 

increased load from the facility 

expansion or whether it is typical to 

install a new system specifically to 

handle that expansion. 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

For new cold storage warehouses, 

acceptable refrigerants for which we are 

not proposing a change of status in this 

end-use include: FOR12A, FOR12B, 

HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R407C, R-407F, R-437A, R-450A, R-513A, 

R-717, R-744, RS-24 (2002 composition), 

SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 123 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

for new cold storage warehouses may be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

The refrigerants we are proposing to 

find unacceptable through this action 

have zero ODPs, but they have GWPs 

ranging from 2,090 to 3,990. As shown 

in Table 10, acceptable alternatives have 

GWPs ranging from zero to 1,820. 

TABLE 10—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Ammonia, CO2, R-450A, R-513A ............................................................................... 0–630 0 No ............ No change.

IKON A, IKON B, THR-02 .......................................................................................... 30–560 0 Yes 3 ........ No change. 

HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F ....................................................................................... 1,430–1,820 0 No ............ No change. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-437A, RS-24 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-03 ... 920–1,810 0 Yes 3 ........ No change. 

R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-423A ................................................ 2,090–2,800 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R-424A, R-438A, 

RS-44 (2003 composition).

2,260–2,730 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

HFC-227ea, R-421B, R-404A, R-507A ...................................................................... 3,190–3,990 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22852 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

124 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

TABLE 10—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES 123—Continued 

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ............................................................................. 3,080–3,610 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

Some of the refrigerant blends not 

subject to the proposed status change, as 

well as several of the substitutes subject 

to the proposed status change, include 

small amounts of R-290, R-600, or other 

substances that are VOCs. These 

amounts are small and for this end-use, 

are not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation.124 In the actions where EPA 

listed these refrigerants as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions, 

EPA concluded none of these 

refrigerants in this end-use pose 

significantly greater risk to ground-level 

ozone formation than other alternative 

refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are 

specifically excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change are highly 

volatile and typically evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than 

contaminating surface waters. Their 

effects on aquatic life are expected to be 

small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 

or ecosystem effects than those of other 

refrigerants that are subject to the 

proposed status change for this end-use. 

(b) Flammability 

For the cold storage warehouse enduse, with the exception of R-717, the 

acceptable refrigerants not subject to 

proposed changes of status, as well as 

those that are subject to proposed 

changes of status, are not flammable. R717 is slightly flammable with a low 

flame speed; it is classified as a 2L 

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R717 has a long history of use as a 

refrigerant in cold storage warehouses 

and other applications. In the original 

SNAP rule, EPA noted ‘‘[a]mmonia has 

been used as a medium to low 

temperature refrigerant in vapor 

compression cycles for more than 100 

years. Ammonia has excellent 

refrigerant properties, a characteristic 

pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric 

risks, and low cost. It is, however, 

slightly flammable and toxic, although it 

is not a cumulative poison. OSHA 

standards specify a 15 minute shortterm exposure limit of 35 ppm for 

ammonia.’’ (53 FR 13072; March 18, 

1994). We further noted its use in 

various food and beverage processing 

and storage applications as well as other 

industrial applications. In that rule, we 

found R-717 acceptable for use in new 

cold storage warehouses, concluding 

that its overall risk to human health and 

the environment was not significantly 

greater than the other alternatives found 

acceptable. This conclusion was based 

on the assumption that the regulated 

community adheres to OSHA 

regulations on such use as well as 

standard refrigeration practices, such as 

the adherence to ASHRAE Standard 15, 

which is often utilized by local 

authorities when setting their own 

building and safety requirements. 

(c) Toxicity 

For the cold storage warehouse enduse, with the exception of R-717, the 

acceptable refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change, as well as those 

that are subject to the proposed status 

change, are of low toxicity (e.g., those 

listed under ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 

are class A toxicity). R-717, for which 

we are not proposing a change of status, 

is of a higher toxicity than some other 

refrigerants and is classified as a B 

refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). 

See section VI.A.4.c.iii.(b) for a 

discussion on the long history of use of 

R-717 and our original decision finding 

it acceptable in new cold storage 

warehouses. 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the refrigerants whose status we 

are proposing to change to 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

alternatives than for the refrigerants we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable are 

significantly higher and thus pose 

significantly greater risk. 

iv. When would the status change? 

EPA is proposing a change of status 

date for new cold storage warehouses of 

January 1, 2023, which the Agency 

believes is the earliest date by which the 

technical challenges can be met for a 

safe and smooth transition to 

alternatives, particularly considering the 

various equipment types that could be 

employed to provide the cooling 

necessary for new cold storage 

warehouses and the requirement for 

many of these equipment types to meet 

energy conservation standards while 

undergoing such a transition. Given the 

widespread use of other acceptable 

alternatives, particularly R-717, EPA 

expects that only a limited number of 

new cold storage warehouses, including 

expansions at existing facilities, would 

otherwise have been designed to use 

one of the alternatives for which we are 

proposing a change of status. 

Nonetheless, because of the restrictions 

that may apply on the use of ammonia 

at the local level, and the variety of 

equipment that could be applied at a 

cold storage warehouse, EPA expects 

that this period of time is necessary 

until acceptable alternatives will 

become available for cold storage 

warehouses. HFC blends, primarily R404A and R-507A, like CFCs and HCFCs 

in the past, may have been used where 

R-717 was deemed by the owner as 

impractical, costly, onerous and/or too 

risky to use, given the restrictions that 

might exist in certain locations or for 

certain applications. For such locations 

and applications, the cold storage 

warehouse industry may need the time 

proposed to develop equipment with 

other alternative refrigerants or address 

the issues that exist with R-717 and the 

other alternatives that are not subject to 

the proposed change in status. As 

explained below, certain types of 

equipment potentially applied in cold 

storage warehouses are subject to energy 

conservation standards, and hence time 

will be required to design, test and 

certify equipment for those standards, 

while at the same time using acceptable 

alternatives. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22853 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

EPA is not aware of other federal rules 

applying to efficiency of cold storage 

warehouses (i.e., the buildings), but we 

find that some federal rules apply to 

equipment that could be used in this 

specified end-use. Specifically, EPA 

notes that air-cooled commercial unitary 

air conditioners and heat pumps 

(‘‘CUACs’’ and ‘‘CUHPs’’) might be 

applied at cold storage warehouses, and 

such equipment is subject to DOE 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE recently issued a pre-publication 

version of a direct final rule affecting 

CUACs and CUHPs (see docket numbers 

EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007 and EERE– 

2013–BT–STD–0021). DOE’s standards 

require that minimum energy efficiency 

levels be met by January 1, 2018 and 

that a second phase of minimum energy 

efficiency levels be met by January 1, 

2023. The 2023 date was chosen by the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee Working 

Group as a time when alternative 

refrigerants could be adopted during 

design modifications for the second 

phase of DOE’s minimum energy 

efficiency levels. In adopting a 2023 

date, DOE stated ‘‘In recognition of the 

issues related to alternative refrigerants, 

members of the Appliance Standards 

and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC) Working Group 

agreed as part of the Term Sheet to 

delay implementation of the second 

phase of increased energy conservation 

standard levels until January 1, 2023, in 

part to align dates with potential 

refrigerant phase-outs and to provide 

sufficient development lead time after 

safety requirements for acceptable 

alternatives have been established.’’ 

(http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/

12/f27/CUAC-CUHP%20CWAF%20

Direct%20Final%20Rule.pdf). Further, 

DOE indicated that ‘‘Delaying the 

implementation of the second phase of 

standards in the manner recommended 

and agreed to by the Working Group 

will provide manufacturers with 

flexibility and additional time to 

comply with both energy conservation 

standards and potential refrigerant 

changes, allowing manufacturers to 

better coordinate equipment redesign to 

reduce the cumulative [regulatory] 

burden.’’ 

DOE issued a final rulemaking on 

June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049) that set 

nineteen energy conservation standards 

for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 

with a compliance date of June 5, 2017. 

Due to litigation regarding this 

rulemaking, DOE vacated six of those 

standards for refrigeration systems and 

is currently engaged in a negotiated 

rulemaking to address the standards as 

referenced in the agency’s technical 

amendments final rulemaking (80 FR 

69837, November 12, 2015). For 

purposes of the DOE regulations, the 

Energy Conservation Act 42 U.S.C. 

6311(20) defines walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers as having a total chilled 

storage area of less than 3,000 square 

feet. EPA considers the vast majority of 

such equipment to fit within the retail 

food refrigeration end-use, rather than 

the cold storage warehouse end-use. As 

described in the July 20, 2015 SNAP 

final rule, walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers as pertaining to DOE 

regulations could fall in the SNAP retail 

food refrigeration end-use category 

‘‘supermarket system’’ (i.e., where 

refrigerant from a multi-compressor rack 

was supplied to the evaporator(s) in the 

walk-in enclosed storage space), 

‘‘remote condensing unit’’ (where a 

dedicated one- or two-compressor 

system installed in the field supplied 

the refrigerant to the walk-in enclosed 

storage space) or ‘‘stand-alone 

equipment’’ (where the enclosed storage 

space is manufactured and delivered 

with all components including the 

refrigerant). Thus, we consider there to 

be no regulatory overlap between the 

vast majority of equipment to provide 

cooling to cold storage warehouses, 

which is addressed by this proposed 

rule and the DOE energy conservation 

standards for walk-in coolers and 

freezers. One exception might be where 

a refrigeration system (that does not 

otherwise fit into the SNAP end-use 

categories of supermarket system or 

remote condensing units) supplied 

refrigerant to an enclosed storage space 

with an area less than 3,000 square foot. 

This enclosed storage space would be 

required to meet both this proposed rule 

and the DOE requirements. On the other 

hand, if this refrigeration system 

supplied refrigerant to two enclosed 

storage spaces, one with an area greater 

than 3,000 square foot and one with an 

area less than that amount, both spaces 

would be covered by this proposed rule 

as cold storage warehouses while only 

the smaller room is covered by the DOE 

requirements. 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on the types and 

subdivisions of cold storage warehouses 

explained here and whether other 

subdivisions of the end-use should be 

considered for this action. In particular, 

EPA requests comments on whether 

different alternatives are used or are 

otherwise available for different types of 

cold storage warehouses, why such 

differences exist, and whether the 

proposed change of status decisions, 

including the date such changes occur, 

might be affected considering such 

differences. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed decision to change the status 

of the identified substitutes to 

unacceptable on January 1, 2023, and on 

the specific steps that must be 

undertaken to commercialize cold 

storage warehouse refrigeration 

equipment with alternative refrigerants, 

including the time each such step 

would take, which steps must occur in 

sequence, and which steps could occur 

in parallel. EPA requests comments on 

if and how this timing might vary based 

on the characteristics of the cold storage 

warehouse and application of the 

equipment. Such characteristics could 

include but are not limited to the 

equipment and system design (i.e., 

direct or indirect, central or unitary/

packaged equipment), the required 

temperatures, jurisdictional limitations 

(e.g., at State or local levels), and 

considerations of risk and safety (e.g., to 

workers, those transporting goods to/

from the facility, and the local public 

depending on the location). EPA 

requests comment on how these 

different distinctions may affect any 

federal rules that apply to the 

equipment or subsets thereof, for 

instance DOE energy conservation 

standards for walk-in coolers and walkin freezers. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment 

on any energy efficiency performance 

impacts of using the refrigerants not 

subject to the change of status proposed 

today that could affect the ability of 

manufacturers to meet current energy 

efficiency requirements or standards for 

cold storage warehouses in the United 

States. Also, EPA requests comment on 

the ability of cold storage warehouses 

using refrigerants other than those for 

which we are proposing a status change 

to meet those energy efficiency 

requirements or standards. In particular, 

we request comment on the specific 

steps and timing of such steps required 

to design and develop cold storage 

warehouses to meet applicable federal 

energy efficiency requirements. 

EPA requests comment on the 

distinctions made here between cold 

storage warehouses and other SNAP 

end-uses. In particular, EPA requests 

comments on whether such distinctions 

are clear and if not, comments on how 

to make such distinctions clear so that 

they are understood by the regulated 

community. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22854 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

EPA requests comment on the 

definition of ‘‘new’’ and how it applies 

to cold storage warehouses. In 

particular, EPA requests comments on 

the likelihood and frequency that 

existing cold storage warehouses are 

expanded and whether it is typical to 

utilize or expand the existing 

refrigeration system to address the 

increased load from the facility 

expansion or whether it is typical to 

install a new system specifically to 

handle that expansion. 

EPA also requests comment on the 

current and expected use of refrigerants 

in cold storage warehouses. In 

particular, we request comment on the 

continued use of ODS and on the use of 

the HFCs for which we propose a 

change of status. We request comment 

on the factors that led to the decision to 

use those refrigerants as opposed to 

other refrigerants for which we are not 

proposing a change of status, including 

especially R-717, which as explained 

above has been used widely in this enduse. We request comment on the use of 

other alternatives, including the ones for 

which we are not proposing a change of 

status and others that may be in 

development, and the expected 

availability and penetration into the 

cold storage warehouse market for such 

alternatives. Two nonflammable HFC/

HFO blends, R-448A and R-449A, are 

designed to perform similarly to R-404A 

and R-507A and are under investigation 

for this use. EPA requests comment on 

the status of such investigations and 

results seen to date. 

We request comment on our 

interpretation that there may be some 

overlap between EPA’s proposed status 

change in cold storage warehouses and 

DOE’s regulatory activity on walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers, as 

discussed in section VI.A.4.c.v above. 

d. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Retail Food 

Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food 

Processing and Dispensing Equipment) 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

numerous refrigerants from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new retail food 

refrigeration (refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment): 

TABLE 11—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION

[Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] 

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment) (new only).HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 

formulation).

Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2021. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

In the SNAP July 20, 2015, final rule 

(80 FR 42870), EPA clarified in the 

response to comments that ‘‘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’’ 

was not included as part of the retail 

food refrigeration end-use categories 

specifically identified in that final rule. 

In the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA 

clarified that this equipment is part of 

a separate end-use category within the 

retail food refrigeration end-use— 

‘‘refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment.’’ A variety of 

food and beverage products are 

dispensed and often processed by 

equipment within this end-use category, 

including but not limited to: Chilled 

and frozen beverages (carbonated and 

uncarbonated, alcoholic and 

nonalcoholic); frozen custards, gelato, 

ice cream, Italian ice, sorbets and 

yogurts; milkshakes, ‘‘slushies’’ and 

smoothies, and whipped cream. For 

instance, some such equipment will 

process the product by combining 

ingredients, mixing and preparing it at 

the proper temperature, while others 

function mainly as a holding tank to 

deliver the product at the desired 

temperature or to deliver chilled 

ingredients for the processing, mixing 

and preparation. Some may use a 

refrigerant in a heat pump, or utilize 

waste heat from the cooling system, to 

provide hot beverages. Some may also 

provide heating functions to melt or 

dislodge ice or for sanitation purposes. 

We noted in the July 20, 2015, final 

rule that refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing equipment ‘‘can be selfcontained or can be connected via 

piping to a dedicated condensing unit 

located elsewhere’’ (80 FR 42902) and 

clarify here that both types fall within 

this end-use category. The equipment 

can be air-cooled although in some 

cases where multiple units are together 

and/or other space constraints exist (and 

hence air movement to the condenser 

would be compromised), a separate 

water line could be used to remove heat. 

This end-use category does not 

include certain types of refrigeration 

equipment. For example, units designed 

solely to cool and dispense water, 

including those that feature detachable 

containers of water as well as those that 

are supplied directly from a shared 

water supply, fall under the separate 

‘‘Water Coolers’’ end-use within the 

SNAP program. In addition, this enduse category does not include the 

preparation of chilled products in 

factory situations; such equipment falls 

under the SNAP end-use ‘‘Industrial 

Process Refrigeration’’ and are 

characterized as being those that do not 

provide products to the ultimate 

consumer for immediate or nearimmediate consumption. Also included 

in the industrial process refrigeration 

end-use are blast chillers and freezers, 

including those that may be used at 

consumer settings such as schools, 

hotels, supermarkets, hospitals, 

restaurants, etc. Further, this end-use 

category does not include the 

equipment used to transport food 

products between distinct points of 

production and storage, such as 

refrigerated trucks that may transport 

products from a factory to a cold storage 

warehouse or from that warehouse to a 

supermarket or restaurant. That type of 

equipment falls under the SNAP enduse ‘‘Refrigerated Transport.’’ 

As part of the retail food refrigeration 

end-use, any alternative that has been 

listed broadly acceptable for the retail 

food refrigeration end-use, as opposed 

to being listed for only an individual 

end-use category within the retail food 

end-use, is likewise acceptable for this 

end-use category. For example, because 

R-744 was found acceptable for the 

retail food refrigeration end-use (74 FR 

50129; September 30, 2009), it is 

acceptable for the refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

category within the retail food 

refrigeration end-use. Those alternatives 

that have been found broadly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22855 

125EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

126 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

unacceptable for this end-use, or those 

that have been found acceptable only for 

other specific end-use categories in this 

end-use, would not be acceptable 

alternatives under current regulations. 

For example, propane has been listed 

specifically for certain end-use 

categories such as standalone reach in 

coolers indicating it is not necessarily 

acceptable for all other end-use 

categories within the retail food enduse. Hence, the following alternatives 

are currently acceptable for new 

refrigerated food process and dispensing 

equipment: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC134a, HFC-227ea, IKON A, IKON B, 

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

42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, 

R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R507A, R-744, RS-24 (2002 formulation), 

RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR02, and THR-03. On the other hand, 

because in our December 2011 and 

April 2015 final rules we found R-290, 

R-600a and R-441A acceptable only for 

stand-alone units, those alternatives are 

not currently acceptable for equipment 

in this end-use category. 

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

For new refrigerated food processing 

and dispensing equipment, EPA is 

proposing to change the status of the 

following refrigerants from acceptable to 

unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ 

290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, 

R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 

R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 

formulation). 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

For new retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment), acceptable 

refrigerants for which we are not 

proposing a change of status in this enduse category include: FOR12A, FOR12B, 

HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), R-450A, R744, SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 125 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

for new refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment may be found in 

the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

The refrigerants for which we are 

proposing a change of status through 

this action have zero ODP, but they have 

GWPs ranging from 1,770 to 3,990. As 

shown in Table 12, acceptable 

alternatives have GWPs ranging from 

one to 1,510. 

TABLE 12—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION

[Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

CO2, HFC-134a, R-450A .................................................................................... 1–1,430 0 No ............ No change. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 composition), 

SP34E, THR-02, THR-03.

30–1,510 0 Yes 3 ........ No change. 

R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A .......................... 1,770–2,800 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R424A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition).1,810–2,730 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-421B, R-507A .............................................................. 3,190–3,990 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ..................................................................... 3,080–3,610 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

Some of the refrigerant blends not 

subject to the proposed status change, as 

well as several of the substitutes subject 

to the proposed status change, include 

small amounts of VOC such as R-290 

(propane) and R-600 (butane). These 

amounts are small, and for this end-use 

are not expected to contribute 

significantly to ground level ozone 

formation.126 In the actions where EPA 

listed these refrigerants as acceptable, 

EPA concluded none of these 

refrigerants in this end-use pose 

significantly greater risk to ground-level 

ozone formation than other alternative 

refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are 

specifically excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change are highly 

volatile and typically evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than 

contaminating surface waters. Their 

effects on aquatic life are expected to be 

small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 

or ecosystem effects than those of other 

refrigerants that are subject to the 

proposed status change for this end-use. 

(b) Flammability 

For the retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment) end-use 

category, all other refrigerants, 

including those for which we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable, are not flammable (e.g., 

those listed under ASHRAE Standard 

34–2013 are class 1 flammability). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22856 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Toxicity 

Toxicity is not a significant concern 

for the refrigerants we are proposing to 

list as unacceptable. Their toxicity is 

comparable to that of other alternatives 

that are acceptable in this end-use. For 

the retail food refrigeration (refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment) end-use category, all other 

refrigerants, including those for which 

we are proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable, are of lower toxicity (e.g., 

those listed under ASHRAE Standard 

34–2013 are class A toxicity). 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the refrigerants whose status we 

are proposing to change to 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

alternatives than for the refrigerants we 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable are 

significantly higher and thus pose 

significantly greater risk. 

iv. When would the status change? 

EPA is proposing a change of status 

date for new retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment) of January 1, 

2021, which the Agency believes is the 

earliest date by which the technical 

challenges can be met for a safe and 

smooth transition to alternatives 

particularly considering the need for 

equipment to comply with any 

sanitation, safety and energy 

conservation standards while 

continuing to maintain the properties, 

characteristics and quality of the food or 

beverage provided by the equipment. 

EPA recognizes that some 

manufacturers will need time to test 

alternative refrigerants and develop 

equipment to use them while meeting 

other standards that may apply. We find 

however that components for some 

refrigerants, such as HFC-134a, are in 

wide supply. Further, as noted in our 

July 2015 rule, at least one major 

beverage retailer has chosen R-744 as its 

alternative refrigerant for stand-alone 

equipment and vending machines. 

Given the change of status dates 

established for such products in that 

rule (from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 

2020) precede the change of status date 

we are proposing here, we expect an 

increasing supply of R-744 components 

that could be utilized in refrigerated 

food processing and dispensing 

equipment. We note that two substitutes 

are currently awaiting SNAP review for 

this end-use. These two substitutes, R448A and R-449A, are designed to 

mimic R-404A and could be readily 

adapted to those refrigerants if they are 

listed as acceptable in the future. As 

discussed below, there are other 

relevant requirements that mean that 

newly designed equipment will need to 

be certified as complying with 

sanitation and safety standards, and 

some may be required to meet energy 

conservation standards issued by DOE. 

These standards apply to similar 

equipment that falls within other enduse categories of the retail food 

refrigeration end-use, and changes of 

status for those end-use categories take 

effect January 1, 2020, or before. Those 

requirements will provide additional 

incentive for refrigerant producers to 

increase low-GWP refrigerant supply, 

for component manufacturers to test and 

qualify components for such low-GWP 

refrigerants, and for manufacturers to 

gain the technical knowledge necessary 

to successfully implement those 

refrigerants. Hence, we foresee that 

additional equipment using similar lowGWP refrigerants, and using 

components that are expected to become 

available, could be similarly 

transitioned in a similar amount of time 

as finalized for those other end-use 

categories. 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

EPA is not aware of any energy 

conservation standards issued by DOE 

that apply to refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment. 

EPA also understands that food safety 

and sanitation standards, such as those 

from the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration and the National 

Sanitation Foundation (NSF), as well as 

product safety standards, such as those 

from UL, apply. 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on the refrigerant(s) 

used for equipment in this end-use 

category, and detailed descriptions of 

the functions and why a particular 

refrigerant is used. We also seek 

comment on the applicability, technical 

feasibility, research, development and 

use of HCs, HFC/HFO blends, R-744 or 

other low-GWP alternatives for 

equipment within this end-use category. 

Additionally, we request comment on 

applicable standards for equipment 

used in the United States as well as 

those that apply to products that are 

pre-charged with refrigerant and 

exported to other countries and 

specifically request comment on how 

those standards may affect when 

equipment can be transitioned away 

from the alternatives we are proposing 

to list as unacceptable. Likewise, we 

request comment on DOE energy 

conservation standards and other 

federal requirements that apply to this 

equipment. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment 

on any energy efficiency performance 

impacts of using the refrigerants not 

subject to the change of status proposed 

today that could affect the ability of 

manufacturers to meet current energy 

efficiency requirements or standards for 

refrigerated food processing and 

dispensing equipment in the United 

States. Also, EPA requests comment on 

the ability of refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

using refrigerants other than those for 

which we are proposing a status change 

to meet those energy efficiency 

requirements or standards. In particular, 

we request comment on the specific 

steps and timing of such steps required 

to design and develop refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment to 

meet applicable federal energy 

efficiency requirements. 

EPA requests detailed comment on 

the proposed decision to change the 

status of the identified substitutes to 

unacceptable on January 1, 2021, and on 

the specific steps that must be 

undertaken for refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment 

with alternative refrigerants to be 

available, including the time each such 

step would take, which steps must 

occur in sequence, and which steps 

could occur in parallel. EPA requests 

comments on if and how this timing 

might vary based on the characteristics 

of the equipment. Such characteristics 

could include, but are not limited to, 

compressor type, condenser design (e.g., 

air cooled or water cooled), refrigeration 

capacity, intended dispensing rate (e.g., 

short-term rush dispensing or steady 

dispensing over longer time), and 

refrigerant currently used and 

potentially used. 

Additionally, EPA requests comment 

on our description of this end-use 

category to ensure it is sufficiently 

understood particularly by those in the 

equipment manufacturing and 

equipment servicing industry. For 

example, are there other technical 

factors that should be used to describe 

this end-use category? In particular, do 

such factors describe equipment types 

that are sufficiently distinct such that 

they are better described as two separate 

end-use categories (e.g., processing/

dispensing and dispensing-only)? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22857 

127ORNL, 2015. ORNL’s JUMP Challenge: JUMP 

in to Advance Tech Innovation! Presented by Brian 

Fricke, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. November 

17, 2015. 

128EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 

2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing 

Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online at: 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/

?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG. 

129RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical 

Options Committee. Available at: http://conf.

montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/

presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20

available%20in%20English%20only/RTOCAssessment-Report-2014.pdf. 

130Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in 

Domestic Refrigeration. Accessible at: http://www.

ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm. 

e. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Refrigerants for New Household 

Refrigerators and Freezers 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status of 

numerous refrigerants from acceptable 

to unacceptable for new household 

refrigerators and freezers: 

TABLE 13—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Household refrigerators and freezers (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-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 

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

Unacceptable as of January 1, 

2021. 

i. What is the affected end-use? 

Household refrigerators, freezers and 

combination refrigerator/freezers are 

intended primarily for residential use, 

although they may be used outside the 

home. The designs and refrigeration 

capacities of equipment vary widely. 

Household refrigerators and freezers are 

composed of three main categories of 

equipment. Household freezers only 

offer storage space at freezing 

temperatures, while household 

refrigerators only offer storage space at 

non-freezing temperatures. Products 

with both a refrigerator and freezer in a 

single unit are most common. In 

addition to the most common types, 

other small refrigerated household 

appliances exist (i.e., chilled kitchen 

drawers, wine coolers, and minifridges). Household refrigerators and 

freezers have all refrigeration 

components integrated, and for the 

smallest types, the refrigeration circuit 

is entirely brazed or welded. These 

systems are charged with refrigerant at 

the factory and typically require only an 

electricity supply to begin operation. 

The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of 

Refrigeration provides an overview of 

food preservation in regards to 

household refrigerators and freezers. 

Generally, a storage temperature 

between 32 and 39 °F (0 to 3.9 °C) is 

desirable for preserving fresh food. 

Humidity and higher or lower 

temperatures are more suitable for 

certain foods and beverages. Wine 

chillers, for example, are frequently 

used for storing wine, and have slightly 

higher optimal temperatures from 45 to 

65 °F (7.2 to 18.3 °C). Freezers and 

combination refrigerator-freezers that 

are designed to store food for long 

durations have temperatures below 8 °F 

(¥13.3 °C) and are designed to hold 

temperatures near 0 to 5 °F (¥17.7 to 

¥15 °C). In single-door refrigerators, the 

optimum conditions for food 

preservation are typically warmer than 

this due to the fact that food storage is 

not intended for long-term storage. 

The following alternatives are 

currently acceptable for new household 

refrigerators and freezers: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, IKON A, 

IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-290, R-404A, R407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, 

R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-507A, R-600a, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 

formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR03. Of those, R-290, R-441A and R-600a 

are acceptable subject to use conditions. 

Currently, the most commonly used 

refrigerant in the United States for 

household refrigerators and freezers is 

R-134a, a HFC with a GWP of 1,430. 

However, throughout many parts of the 

world, R-600a with a GWP of 8 is the 

most commonly used refrigerant and 

there are ongoing efforts to help 

facilitate the adoption and continued 

use of R-600a in this industry.127 The 

European Union (EU) banned the use of 

HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 

(which includes R-134a) for household 

refrigerators and freezers as of January 1, 

2015.128 R-600a has been used in 

Europe for approximately two decades. 

Throughout parts of Asia, Africa, and 

South America, R-600a is the dominant 

refrigerant for this end-use. In its 2014 

assessment report,129 the TEAP’s RTOC 

projects that by 2020 about 75 percent 

of new household refrigerators globally 

will use R-600a, a small percentage will 

use HFOs, and the rest will use HFC134a. There are other alternatives that 

can be considered too. EPA also listed 

R-450A and R-513A as acceptable for 

use in this end-use (79 FR 62863, 

October 21, 2014; 80 FR 42053, July 16, 

2015, respectively). As noted in the 

preamble to those Notices of 

Acceptability, both R-450A and R-513A 

were designed to match the 

characteristics and performance of HFC134a and therefore we conclude that 

they may be under consideration by 

manufacturers as well. 

EPA previously found a number of 

flammable HC refrigerants including R290, R-441A and R-600a as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions in household 

refrigerators and freezers (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 

10, 2015). Hydrocarbon refrigerants 

have been in use for over 20 years in 

countries such as Germany, the United 

Kingdom, Australia, and Japan.130

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing 

to list as unacceptable? 

For new household refrigerators and 

freezers, EPA is proposing to change the 

status of the following refrigerants from 

acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, 

FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/

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

R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, 

R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 

(2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

131EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

132 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 

of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 

Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 

iii. How do these proposed 

unacceptable refrigerants compare to 

other refrigerants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

For new household refrigerators and 

freezers, acceptable refrigerants for 

which we are not proposing a change of 

status in this end-use include: HFC152a, IKON A, IKON B, and THR-02; 

two HFC/HFO blends R-513A and R450A; and HC refrigerants R-290, R441A and R-600a. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 131 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

for new household refrigerators and 

freezers may be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

The refrigerants we are finding 

unacceptable through this action also 

have zero ODP, but they have GWPs 

ranging from 920 to 3,990. As shown in 

Table 14, other alternatives, some of 

which are acceptable subject to use 

conditions, have GWP ranging from 

three to 630. 

TABLE 14—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-441A, R-600a, THR-02 .......................................... 3–560 0 Yes 3 ........ No change. 

HFC-152a ............................................................................................................ 124 0 No ............ No change. 

R-450A, R-513A .................................................................................................. 600–630 0 No ............ No change. 

HFC-134a ............................................................................................................ 1,430 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-03 ....... 920–1,510 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A ...................................................... 1,770–2,630 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R424A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition).1,810–2,730 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

R-404A, R-421B, R-507A ................................................................................... 3,190–3,990 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ..................................................................... 3,080–3,610 0 Yes 3 ........ Unacceptable. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 

Three substitutes that remain 

acceptable subject to use conditions, R290, 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.132 In the 

actions where EPA listed these 

refrigerants as acceptable subject to use 

conditions, EPA concluded none of 

these refrigerants in this end-use pose 

significantly greater risk to ground-level 

ozone formation than other alternative 

refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are 

specifically excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

The refrigerants not subject to the 

proposed status change are highly 

volatile and typically evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than 

contaminating surface waters. Their 

effects on aquatic life are expected to be 

small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 

or ecosystem effects than those of other 

refrigerants that are subject to the 

proposed status change for this end-use. 

(b) Flammability 

For household refrigerators and 

freezers, with the exception of HFC152a, R-290, R-600a and R-441A, all 

other refrigerants listed as acceptable, 

including those for which we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable, are not flammable. The 

HCs R-290 and R-600a are classified as 

Class A3 (lower toxicity, higher 

flammability) refrigerants under the 

standard ASHRAE 34 (2013) while HFC152a is classified as Class A2 (lower 

toxicity, lower flammability). To 

address flammability, EPA listed these 

HCs as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions. The use conditions include 

conditions consistent with industry 

standards, limits on charge size, and 

requirements for warnings and markings 

on equipment to inform consumers and 

technicians of potential flammability 

hazards. Our assessment and listing 

decisions (76 FR 78832; December 20, 

2011 and FR 80 1954; April 10, 2015) 

found that the overall risk, including the 

risk due to flammability with the use 

conditions, is not significantly greater 

than for other refrigerants at that time 

and likewise are not significantly greater 

than for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable. EPA 

found HFC-152a acceptable for new 

household refrigerators and freezers in 

the original SNAP rule indicating 

‘‘[a]lthough HFC-152a is flammable, a 

risk assessment demonstrated it could 

be used safely in this end-use’’ (59 FR 

13081; March 18, 1994). 

(c) Toxicity 

Toxicity is not a significant concern 

for the refrigerants we are proposing to 

list as unacceptable. Their toxicity is 

comparable to that of other alternatives 

that are acceptable in this end-use. The 

refrigerants subject to the proposed 

status change and the refrigerants not 

subject to the proposed status change, if 

listed under ASHRAE 34 (2013), are 

classified as A refrigerants (lower 

toxicity). 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

alternatives that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the refrigerants whose status we 

are proposing to change to 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

alternatives than for the refrigerants we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22859 

133 Defined at 40 CFR 86.1801–03. 

134MVAC systems provide passenger comfort 

cooling for light-duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty 

vehicles (large pick-ups, delivery trucks, 

recreational vehicles, and semi-trucks), off-road 

vehicles, buses, and rail vehicles. EPA is not 

addressing other types of HD vehicles, off-road 

vehicles, buses, or trains in the proposed listing 

decision. 

135MDPVs are classified as HD vehicles based on 

their GVWR, but due to their similarities to LD 

vehicles they are subject to the GHG emissions 

standards established for LD trucks. 

are proposing to list as unacceptable, 

and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are 

proposing to list as unacceptable are 

significantly higher and thus pose 

significantly greater risk. 

iv. When would the status change? 

EPA is proposing a change of status 

date for new household refrigerators and 

freezers of January 1, 2021, by this date 

the Agency believes the technical 

challenges can be met for a safe and 

smooth transition to alternatives, 

particularly considering the likely use of 

alternatives that are acceptable subject 

to use conditions such as isobutane or 

propane. As noted above, most experts, 

including the TEAP, anticipate the 

majority of the household refrigeration 

market will use HC refrigerants globally 

and EPA does not have information 

suggesting anything different for the 

United States. Although some models 

may be able to transition in compliance 

with use conditions required for 

alternatives earlier, the Agency believes 

that most can transition by 2021. 

EPA recognizes that manufacturers 

will need time to continue product 

design work for alternative refrigerants, 

drawing from current models used both 

in the United States and elsewhere. 

Household refrigerators are subject to 

DOE energy conservation standards and 

will need to be tested to demonstrate 

compliance with those standards. We 

understand that there may be 

limitations with regards to the 

availability of testing facilities. If the 

proposed change of status date was 

exceedingly ahead of the next 

anticipated DOE energy conservation 

standard date, it could affect the 

availability of testing facilities. DOE’s 

previous energy conservation 

rulemaking for this end-use was 

finalized in 2011 with a compliance 

date of September 15, 2014 (76 FR 

57516; September 15, 2011). EPA 

anticipates that any amended standard 

set by DOE for these products in an 

upcoming rulemaking will, consistent 

with prior rulemakings, have a 

compliance date several years following 

issuance of the standard and thus we 

expect that the compliance date would 

be no earlier than 2020. As a result, 

EPA’s proposed change of status in 2021 

likely would occur at approximately the 

same time as a compliance date for the 

next future DOE energy conservation 

standard for these products. 

v. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

DOE energy conservation standards 

apply to household refrigerators and 

freezers, as discussed in section 

VI.A.4.e.iv. 

vi. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on the proposed 

change of status date of January 1, 2021. 

In particular, EPA requests comments 

on the specific steps that must be 

undertaken to commercialize household 

refrigerators and freezers with 

alternative refrigerants in the United 

States, including the time each step 

would take, which steps must occur in 

sequence, and which steps could occur 

in parallel. EPA requests comments on 

how and if this timing might vary based 

on the characteristics of the household 

refrigerator and freezer. Such 

characteristics could include, but are 

not limited to, capacity range, internal 

volume, design (e.g., refrigerator-only, 

freezer-only, or both) and refrigerant 

currently used and potentially used. 

EPA also requests comment on the 

expected availability of alternatives for 

such equipment, including when 

products using such alternatives would 

be available. EPA requests comments on 

how such timing is expected to be 

affected by other federal rules in the 

future, including the availability of 

testing laboratories to analyze the 

performance of products with 

alternatives while meeting any 

applicable federal rules. Additionally, 

EPA requests comment on any energy 

efficiency performance impacts of using 

the refrigerants not subject to the change 

of status proposed today that could 

affect the ability of manufacturers to 

meet current energy efficiency 

requirements or standards for household 

refrigerators and freezers in the United 

States. Also, EPA requests comment on 

the ability of household refrigerators 

and freezers using refrigerants other 

than those for which we are proposing 

a status change to meet those energy 

efficiency requirements or standards. In 

particular, we request comment on the 

specific steps and timing of such steps 

required to design and develop 

household refrigerators and freezers to 

meet applicable federal energy 

efficiency requirements. 

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 

1. Proposed Listing of HFO-1234yf as 

Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, 

for Newly Manufactured MVAC 

Systems 

EPA is proposing to list HFO-1234yf 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

in MVAC systems for newly 

manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans. EPA is 

proposing to list HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

use in complete HD vans; we also are 

requesting comment and information on 

listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable 

subject, to use conditions for some 

incomplete HD vans. At this time, our 

proposal only includes complete HD 

vans because we do not have sufficient 

information on the potential for 

modifications to OEM-installed MVAC 

systems of incomplete HD vans by 

secondary and tertiary manufacturers 

and the impact of those modifications 

on safe use of HFO-1234yf. The use 

conditions are detailed below in section 

V.B.1.c, ‘‘What are the proposed use 

conditions?’’ 

2. What is the affected end-use? 

The vehicle types within the MVAC 

end-use that are addressed in today’s 

proposal include limited types of heavyduty (HD) vehicles, specifically, 

MDPVs,133 HD trucks, and complete HD 

vans.134 EPA has previously listed HFO1234yf as acceptable subject to use 

conditions in light-duty (LD) motor 

vehicles and trucks (76 FR 17490; 

March 29, 2011). 

HD vehicles are often subdivided by 

vehicle weight classifications, as 

defined by the vehicle’s gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR), which is a 

measure of the combined curb (empty) 

weight and cargo carrying capacity of 

the truck. HD vehicles have GVWRs 

above 8,500. Table 15 outlines the HD 

vehicle weight classifications commonly 

used. MDPVs,135 HD pickup trucks, and 

HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles 

with GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 

pounds. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22860 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

136HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions for newly manufactured passenger 

cars and light-duty trucks only (40 CFR part 82 

subpart G). 137This is more broadly true for heavy-duty 

pickup trucks than vans because every 

manufacturer of heavy-duty pickup trucks also 

makes light-duty pickup trucks, while only some 

heavy-duty van manufacturers also make light-duty 

vans (80 FR 40148; July 13, 2015). 138EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles— 

Phase 2. EPA–420–D–15–900. June 2015. Available 

at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/

420d15900.pdf. 139 ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean 

Transportation: Regulatory Considerations for 

Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van Efficiency 

Technology in the United States. Available online 

at: http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickupsvans-efficiency-technology. 140 ICF, 2015. 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. 

141EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

142HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G; final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 

FR 33304). 

143CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G; final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 

33315). 

TABLE 15—VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION

Class 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 

GVWR (lb) ...... 8,501–10,000 10,001–14,000 14,001–16,000 16,001–19,500 19,501–26,000 26,001–33,000 >33,000 

The types of HD vehicles for which 

EPA is proposing to list HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

are in many ways more similar to LD 

vehicles, for which HFO-1234yf has 

already been approved under SNAP,136

than they are to the HD vehicles with a 

higher GVWR classification. These 

vehicle types are similar to LD vehicles 

technologically and most are 

manufactured by companies with major 

light-duty markets in the United States 

and in a similar manner to LD 

vehicles.137 Ford, General Motors, and 

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) 

produce approximately 100 percent of 

HD pickup trucks and approximately 95 

percent of HD vans, with Daimler and 

Nissan producing the remaining 

approximately five percent of HD 

vans.138 In many cases, these types of 

HD vehicles are versions of their LD 

counterparts.139 For example, the 

Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, and Ford F– 

150 are the LD counterparts of the HD 

Silverado 2500/3500, Ram 2500/3500, 

and Ford F–250/F–350/F–450 pickup 

trucks.140 The primary difference 

between HD pickup trucks and vans and 

their LD counterpart vehicles is that HD 

pickups and vans are occupational or 

work vehicles that are designed for 

much higher towing and payload 

capabilities than are LD pickups and 

vans. 

All types of HD vehicles can be sold 

as ‘‘complete’’ or ‘‘incomplete’’ vehicles 

(76 FR 57259–60; September 15, 2011). 

Complete vehicles are sold by vehicle 

manufacturers to end-users with no 

secondary manufacturer making 

substantial modifications prior to 

registration and use. Incomplete 

vehicles are sold by vehicle 

manufacturers to secondary 

manufacturers without the primary 

load-carrying device or container 

attached. With regard to HD pickup 

trucks and vans, 90 percent are sold as 

complete vehicles while only 10 percent 

are sold as incomplete (80 FR 40331; 

July 13, 2015). Of the 10 percent of HD 

pickups and vans that are sold as 

incomplete vehicles to secondary 

manufacturers, about half are HD 

pickup trucks and half are HD vans. 

Examples of modifications by 

secondary manufacturers to HD pickup 

trucks are installing a flatbed platform 

or tool storage bins. EPA is not aware of 

any equipment added by a secondary 

manufacturer to an incomplete HD 

pickup truck that would result in a 

secondary manufacturer modifying or 

adjusting the already installed MVAC 

system to provide cooling capacity. 

Incomplete vans are typically sold 

with no enclosed cabin area behind the 

driver’s seat, and secondary 

manufacturer modifications could 

include applications such as conversion 

to ambulances, shuttle vans, and motor 

homes. Incomplete vans may include 

OEM MVAC systems that are identical 

to those installed in the complete van 

on which the incomplete model is 

based. In some cases these systems are 

designed solely for cooling the front 

driver area, while other systems are 

manufactured by the OEM with 

additional capability to provide cooling 

behind the driver area to the cabin. 

Some, but not all, secondary 

manufacturers use the OEM MVAC 

system with no modification to the 

contained refrigerant system (hoses, 

connections, heat exchangers, 

compressor, etc.). 

3. How does HFO-1234yf compare to 

other refrigerants for these MVAC 

applications with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 141 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

Available refrigerants in the end-uses 

subject to this proposal include HFC134a, HFC-152a,142 and CO2.143 There 

are also several blend refrigerants that 

are listed as acceptable for new HD 

MVAC systems, subject to use 

conditions, including the HFC blends 

SP34E and R-426A (also known as RS24) 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). 

EPA is not aware of the use or 

development of any of these blend 

refrigerants in newly manufactured 

MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, or HD vans. 

HFC-134a is the refrigerant most widely 

used today in HD MVAC systems. All 

MVAC refrigerants are subject to use 

conditions requiring labeling and the 

use of unique fittings, and the two 

lower-GWP alternatives (HFC-152a, 

CO2) currently approved for use in HD 

vehicles are subject to additional use 

conditions mitigating flammability and 

toxicity as appropriate to the alternative. 

As explained more fully below, to 

evaluate environmental, flammability, 

and toxicity risks resulting from the use 

of HFO-1234yf in new MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans, 

the Agency is relying on EPA’s analysis 

conducted in support of the 2011 listing 

decision for HFO-1234yf for LD 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22861 

144HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G; final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 

FR 33304). 145CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G; final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 

33315). 146Other fluorinated compounds also decompose 

into TFA, including HFC-134a. 147Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts 

in North America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3- 

tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential 

greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental 

Science & Technology 2009. The document is 

accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/

Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_

and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_

degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/

links/00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf. 

148 ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of 

the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the 

Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 

Communities and Local Air Quality. 

149 ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf 

Emissions Assumptions. 

150 ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the 

Vintaging Model that Impacted HFO-1234yf 

Emissions Estimates. 

151 ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the 

Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the 

Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 

Communities, Soil and Plants, and Local Air 

Quality. 

152 ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results 

on projected maximum TFA rainwater 

concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 

concentrations. 

153 ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results 

on projected maximum TFA rainwater 

concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 

concentrations. 

154Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts 

in North America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3- 

tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential 

greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental 

Science & Technology 2009. The document is 

accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/

Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_

and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_

degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/

links/00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf. 

vehicles. In addition, we considered risk 

assessments performed by OEMs and 

independent consultants on the use of 

HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles through SAE 

Cooperative Research Programs (CRPs) 

and found these were consistent with 

our analysis. Based on that analysis, in 

2011 EPA concluded that for LD 

vehicles HFO-1234yf did not pose 

significantly greater risk to human 

health and the environment than the 

other alternatives when used in 

accordance with use conditions 

established as part of the listing 

decision. The refrigerants to which 

HFO-1234yf was compared in the 2011 

action for LD vehicles are the same 

refrigerants available for use in the 

vehicle types included in today’s 

proposal. 

EPA is able to rely on the 2011 

analysis of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles 

in support of this proposal because the 

MVAC systems, vehicle designs, and the 

potential for exposure for the HD 

vehicle types for which EPA is 

proposing to list HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

today’s action are identical or very 

similar to those of LD vehicles. As 

discussed in more detail below, EPA has 

determined that the analyses conducted 

on HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles are 

sufficiently conservative to support 

today’s proposal, and, in turn, that the 

use of HFO-1234yf in the MVAC 

systems of MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, 

and complete HD vans does not pose 

greater risk to human health or the 

environment than other alternatives, 

when used in accordance with use 

conditions. 

a. Environmental Impacts 

HFO-1234yf has a GWP of one to four. 

HFO-1234yf has a GWP similar to or 

lower than the GWP of other 

alternatives for the HD vehicle types 

addressed in today’s proposal. For 

example, its GWP is significantly lower 

than that of HFC-134a, the refrigerant 

most widely used in these vehicles 

today, which has a GWP of 1,430. As 

shown in Table 16, two other 

alternatives, HFC-152a,144 and CO2 145

have GWPs of 1,430, 124, and one, 

respectively. Other acceptable 

refrigerants for the HD vehicle types 

addressed in today’s proposal have 

GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,340. 

TABLE 16—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF HFO-1234YF COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN MVAC SYSTEMS

OF NEWLY MANUFACTURED MDPVS, HD PICKUP TRUCKS, AND COMPLETE HD VANS 123

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC 

status Proposal 

HFO-1234yf ................................................................... 1–4 0 No ............ Acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

CO2, HFC-152a, HFC-134a .......................................... 1–1,430 0 No ............ No change. 

IKON A, R-416A, R-426A, SP34E ................................ 30–1,510 0–0.009 Yes 3 ........ No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 

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

production and consumption. 3One or more constituents of the blend are VOC. 

HFO-1234yf does not deplete the 

ozone layer. Like HFO-1234yf, HFC134a, HFC-152a, CO2 and the HFC 

blends SP34E and R-426 Ado not 

deplete the ozone layer; however, the 

HCFC blends have ODPs ranging from 

0.012 to 0.056. 

HFO-1234yf, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, 

and CO2 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 NAAQS. The HFC blends 

and some of the HCFC blends have one 

or more components that are VOCs. 

Another potential environmental 

impact of HFO-1234yf is its atmospheric 

decomposition to trifluoroacetic acid 

(TFA, CF3COOH). TFA is a strong acid 

that may accumulate on soil, on plants, 

and in aquatic ecosystems over time and 

that may have the potential to adversely 

impact plants, animals, and 

ecosystems.146 Simulations have found 

that the amount of TFA in rainfall 

produced from a transition of all mobile 

air conditioners in the continental 

United States to HFO-1234yf has been 

estimated to be double or more the 

values observed in the United States in 

2009 from all sources, natural and 

artificial (i.e., HFC-134a) sources.147 In 

comparison, the amount of TFA 

produced from HFO-1234yf is expected 

to be higher than that of other 

fluorinated refrigerants in this end-use. 

In support of the 2011 listing decision 

for HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles, EPA 

analyzed potential TFA concentrations 

from a full transition to HFO-1234yf in 

all MVAC applications, not limited to 

LD vehicles.148 149 150 151 152 The analysis 

found a maximum projected 

concentration of TFA in rainwater of 

approximately 1,700 ng/L. This 

maximum projected concentration 

identified in EPA’s analysis, 1700 ng/

L,153 was roughly 34 percent higher 

than that projected in a 2009 peer 

reviewed article.154 The differences in 

projected TFA concentrations in water 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22862 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

155 ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results 

on projected maximum TFA rainwater 

concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 

concentrations. 

156 ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of 

the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the 

Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 

Communities and Local Air Quality. 

157 Kazil et al., 2014. Deposition and rainwater 

concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid in the United 

States from the use of HFO-1234yf. JGRAtmospheres, 2014. 

158 ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant 

Charge Size to Passenger Compartment Volume 

Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2008. 

159SAE, 2013. SAE International Cooperative 

Research Project CRP1234–4 on R-1234yf Safety, 

Finishes Work and Presents Conclusions. This 

document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/

servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&

PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=2146. 

160 ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant 

Charge Size to Passenger Compartment Volume 

Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2008. 

is a reflection of EPA’s reliance on 

higher emission estimates.155 Even 

when relying on more conservative 

emission estimates, a concentration of 

1700 ng/L corresponds to roughly 1/

600th of the No-Observed-AdverseEffect-Level (NOAEL) for the most 

sensitive algae species, which is also 

well below the NOAEL for the most 

sensitive aquatic animal species.156

Since the 2011 final rule listing HFO1234yf as acceptable for LD vehicles, 

additional research on TFA has been 

conducted. The UNEP Ozone Secretariat 

provided a summary of key information 

pertaining to TFA based on the 2014 

Assessment Reports of the 

Environmental Effects Assessment Panel 

(EEAP) and the Scientific Assessment 

Panel (SAP) of the Montreal Protocol. 

The brief states, ‘‘While it is well 

established that TFA is a ubiquitous 

natural component in rivers, lakes, and 

other surface water bodies, uncertainties 

remain regarding anthropogenic 

sources, long-term fate and abundances 

as these are linked to current and future 

use and emissions of HFCs, HCFCs, and 

HFOs. Based on estimates to 2040, 

increases are predicted to remain 

relatively low and are therefore not 

expected to be a significant risk to 

human health or detrimental to the 

environment. Projected future increased 

loadings of TFA to playas, land-locked 

lakes, and the oceans due to continued 

use of HCFCs, HFCs, and replacement 

products such as HFOs are still judged 

to present negligible risks for aquatic 

organisms and humans.’’ The UNEP 

background document also states that 

TFA and its salts ‘‘do not bioconcentrate 

in aquatic organisms, and do not 

biomagnify in the food chain. Thus they 

present negligible risk to organisms 

higher on the food chain, including 

humans.’’ 

A 2014 study by Kazil, et al.157

analyzed TFA deposition in the United 

States assuming 100 percent of all 

MVAC systems use HFO-1234yf. The 

results indicated that rainwater TFA 

concentrations, while varying strongly 

geographically, will on average be low 

compared to the levels at which toxic 

effects are observed in aquatic systems. 

The additional information available 

since our 2011 listing decision shows no 

greater risk than our earlier analysis. 

Taking into consideration the analysis 

conducted in support of the 2011 listing 

decision, which was based on 

conservative emissions assumptions and 

a transition from HFC-134a to HFO1234yf for all MVAC systems (not 

limited to LD vehicles), and the research 

that has been conducted since, EPA 

concludes that the use of HFO-1234yf in 

the HD vehicle types addressed in this 

action will not pose a significant risk to 

the environment from atmospheric 

decomposition to TFA. 

Based on the consideration of all of 

these environmental impacts, EPA 

concludes that HFO-1234yf does not 

pose significantly greater risk to the 

environment than the other alternatives 

for use in newly manufactured MDPVs, 

HD pickup trucks, and complete HD 

vans, and it poses significantly less risk 

than several of the alternatives with 

high-GWPs and ODPs. 

b. Flammability 

HFO-1234yf is a flammable refrigerant 

classified as A2L under ASHRAE 34- 

2013. HFC-134a and CO2 are 

nonflammable refrigerants, while HFC152a is slightly more flammable than 

HFO-1234yf with an ASHRAE 

classification of A2. 

To evaluate human health and safety 

impacts, including flammability risks, of 

the use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans, 

the Agency is relying on EPA’s analysis 

conducted in support of the 2011 listing 

decision for HFO-1234yf for LD vehicles 

and information submitted during the 

public comment period of the proposal 

for the 2011 final decision (October 19, 

2009; 74 FR 53445), including the SAE 

CRP risk assessments. With regards to 

occupational exposure, EPA’s risk 

screen on the use of HFO-1234yf in LD 

vehicles evaluated flammability risks 

(e.g., potential for a fire from release and 

ignition) in workplace situations, such 

as during equipment manufacture and 

disposal or recycling of vehicle end-oflife. Modeling of concentrations of HFO1234yf in the workplace scenarios found 

short-term, 15-minute concentrations of 

28 ppm or less—far below the lower 

LFL of 6.2 percent by volume (62,000 

ppm).158

The SAE CRP’s risk assessments also 

evaluated flammability risks to 

technicians. The SAE CRP conducted 

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 

modeling of exposure levels in case of 

a leak in a system in a service shop. The 

SAE CRP found that a leaked 

concentration of HFO-1234yf could 

exceed the LFL of 6.2%, but only within 

ten centimeters or less of the leak. The 

SAE CRP risk assessment concluded 

that the risk of this occupational 

exposure scenario is ‘‘inconsequential’’ 

because ignition sources would not be 

located within ten centimeters of the 

MVAC system given technicians’ 

familiarity with precautions necessary 

to avoid flammability risks due to the 

presence of other flammable materials 

in the engine compartment.159 EPA 

notes that HFO-1234yf is less flammable 

and results in a less energetic flame than 

a number of fluids that motor vehicle 

service technicians and recyclers or 

disposers deal with on a regular basis, 

such as oil, anti-freeze, transmission 

fluid, and gasoline. The results of the 

CRP indicate that HFO-1234yf does not 

pose a greater risk in occupational 

settings than nonflammable alternatives, 

or HFC-152a, which is more flammable 

than HFO-1234yf and already approved 

for use in the HD vehicle types being 

addressed in this action. 

Regarding the flammability risks of 

HF-1234yf to passengers inside a LD 

vehicle, in support of the 2011 listing 

decision, EPA determined the following 

(76 FR 17490; March 29, 2011): 

Depending on the charge size of an HFO1234yf MVAC system, which may range from 

as little as 400 grams to as much as 1600 

grams,160 it is possible in a worst case 

scenario to reach a flammable concentration 

of HFO-1234yf inside the passenger 

compartment. This could occur in the case of 

a collision that ruptures the evaporator in the 

absence of a switch or other engineering 

mitigation device to prevent flow of high 

concentrations of the refrigerant into the 

passenger compartment, provided that the 

windows and windshield remain intact. As 

stated in the SAE CRP, ignition of the 

refrigerant once in the passenger cabin is 

unlikely (probability on the order of 10¥14

occurrences per operating hour) because the 

only causes of ignition within the passenger 

cabin with sufficient energy to ignite the 

refrigerant would be use of a butane lighter 

(EPA–OAR–2008–0664–0056.2). If a 

passenger were in a collision, or in an 

emergency situation, it is unlikely that they 

would choose to operate a butane lighter in 

the passenger cabin. Additionally, it is 

unlikely ignition would occur from a flame 

from another part of the vehicle because 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22863 

161 Gradient, 2013. Executive Summary for 

Additional Risk Assessment of Alternative 

Refrigerant R-1234yf, Prepared by Gradient for SAE 

International CRP–1234–4. July 24, 2013. Available 

online at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/

cooperative/executivesummary.pdf. 

162 Gradient, 2013. Executive Summary for 

Additional Risk Assessment of Alternative 

Refrigerant R-1234yf, Prepared by Gradient for SAE 

International CRP–1234–4. July 24, 2013. Available 

online at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/

cooperative/executivesummary.pdf. 

163 ICF, 2016i. Technical Support Document for 

Acceptability Listing of HFO-1234yf for Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited Heavy-Duty 

Applications. 

164 ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant 

Charge Size to Passenger Compartment Volume 

Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum 

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 2008. 

automobiles are constructed to seal off the 

passenger compartment with a firewall. If a 

collision breached the passenger 

compartment such that a flame from another 

part of the vehicle could reach it, that breach 

would also create ventilation that would 

lower the refrigerant concentration below the 

lower flammability limit. Similarly, if either 

a window or the windshield were broken in 

the collision, the ventilation created would 

lower the refrigerant concentration below the 

lower flammability limit. Therefore, EPA 

finds that flammability risks of HFO-1234yf 

to passengers inside a vehicle will be low. 

Further, these risks are likely to be less than 

those from HFC-152a, another flammable 

refrigerant that EPA has previously found 

acceptable subject to use conditions, because 

HFC-152a has a lower LFL and a lower 

minimum ignition energy than HFO-1234yf 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0008, –0013.4, 

–0056.2). 

Since that time additional analysis 

has been conducted under more recent 

SAE CRPs. 

The fourth and most recent SAE CRP, 

SAE CRP1234–4, was established in 

October 2012 in response to a press 

release issued by the German OEM 

Daimler ‘‘suggesting that new testing 

conducted by the company had shown 

R-1234yf to pose greater risk of vehicle 

fire than was estimated by the prior 

CRP1234 analysis.’’ The final report for 

SAE CRP1234–4 was released on July 

24, 2013, and concluded that the 

‘‘refrigerant release testing completed by 

Daimler was unrealistic.’’ And, ‘‘their 

testing created extreme conditions that 

favored ignition while ignoring many 

mitigating factors that would be present 

in an actual real-world collision.’’ 161

The OEM members of CRP1234–4 

included FCA, Ford, General Motors, 

Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, 

Mazda, PSA, Renault, and Toyota. 

To fully assess the newly raised 

concerns, CRP1234–4 completed two 

new fault tree scenarios as refinements 

to the original fault tree analysis (FTA). 

‘‘The two new fault tree scenarios 

consider the possibility of an individual 

being unable to exit the vehicle due to 

a collision or a non-collision event that 

involves a refrigerant/oil release, the 

refrigerant/oil being ignited and the fire 

propagating. The FTA examined average 

risks across the entire global fleet of 

light-duty vehicles and used a number 

of conservative assumptions to ensure 

that the final risk estimate would be 

more likely to overestimate rather than 

underestimate actual risks.’’ SAE 

CRP1234–4 concluded that: 

Based on the updated analysis, the 

estimated overall risk of vehicle fire exposure 

attributed to use of R-1234yf is 

conservatively estimated at 3 × 10¥12 events 

per vehicle operating hour. This is nearly six 

orders of magnitude less than the current risk 

of vehicle fires due to all causes 

(approximately 1 × 10¥6 per vehicle 

operating hour) and also well below other 

risks accepted by the general public. The 

current overall risk of occupant exposure to 

adverse events based on R-1234yf usage is on 

the same order of magnitude as that 

estimated in the prior work of CRP1234. 

Therefore, the conclusions of the former CRP 

risk assessment are still valid: Risks are still 

very small compared to the risks of a vehicle 

fire from all causes and well below risks that 

are commonly viewed as acceptable by the 

general public.162

The findings of CRP1234–4 provide 

additional support for the conclusions 

of prior CRPs, and the EPA’s analysis for 

its 2011 rule listing HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

use in LD vehicles. These findings in 

conjunction with EPA’s earlier 

evaluation for LD vehicles support this 

proposal to list HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

the identified HD vehicle types. 

To determine the appropriateness of 

relying on the conclusions of the 

extensive risk assessments conducted 

on flammability risks to passengers from 

HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles to support 

today’s proposed SNAP listing of the 

same alternative in MDPVs, HD pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans, we 

conducted an analysis of refrigerant 

charge size as compared to vehicle cabin 

size.163 Specifically, we evaluated 

whether the charge size and vehicle 

cabin size used for the worst case 

scenario for LD vehicles would be 

sufficiently conservative to also 

represent a worst case scenario for the 

HD vehicle types addressed in this 

proposal. EPA analyzed the charge to 

vehicle cabin size ratios for 38 vehicle 

models of MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, 

and HD vans and found that the highest 

ratio of charge size to compartment area, 

which represents the most conservative 

exposure scenario (smallest passenger 

compartment with largest refrigerant 

charge), for the types of HD vehicles 

included in this proposal, is 410 g/m3. 

This ratio is significantly lower than the 

highest ratio identified for LD vehicles, 

641 g/m3, which was identified as the 

most conservative value and used to 

conduct the risk screen supporting for 

LD listing.164 Thus, the assessment used 

for the LD vehicles is sufficiently 

conservative to also represent a worst 

case scenario for the HD vehicle types 

subject to this proposal. 

EPA considered the results of our 

examination of the ratio of charge size 

to compartment area and our 

understanding of these vehicle types 

and their MVAC systems being very 

similar to LD vehicles in determining it 

was appropriate to rely on the currently 

available analyses on light-duty 

vehicles. In addition, EPA has 

considered the characteristics of 

MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD vans 

that could be different from LD vehicles, 

such as differences in the engine 

compartment size, passenger cabins, 

and operating conditions, and how 

those might impact EPA’s reliance on 

the LD analyses. CRP1234–4 considered 

the temperature and condition of a hot 

surface that would be necessary to ignite 

HFO-1234yf released into the engine 

compartment as part of the FTA. The 

risk assessment conservatively analyzed 

a refrigerant and oil mixture contacting 

a hot surface, at or above 700 degrees 

Fahrenheit, in a stagnant zone condition 

such as might occur if the hot surface 

were covered with a heat shield with 

limited ventilation. EPA considered 

whether the engine temperatures and 

configurations of MDPVs, and HD 

pickup trucks and vans would reach 

higher temperatures (above 700 degrees) 

more regularly due to workload and 

towing capabilities, and if this would 

increase the likelihood of a fire under 

the hood of the vehicle. EPA does not 

believe this is the case. Despite their use 

as occupational vehicles and their 

towing capabilities, EPA does not 

expect any engine compartment surfaces 

to reach temperatures above those 

conservatively assumed for LD vehicles. 

The engine materials in these vehicles 

are the same as their LD counterparts, or 

in some cases a different material may 

be used to ensure consistent operating 

conditions. Also, in many cases the 

engine compartments for these vehicle 

types are larger than a LD engine 

compartment, allowing for additional 

space between hot parts and 

refrigeration lines, as well as increased 

airflow in the engine, decreasing the 

likelihood that refrigerant would be 

released onto a hot surface and that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22864 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

165This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from 

the study, ‘‘An Inhalation Prenatal Developmental 

Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3- 

Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0664–0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account 

for differences in blood concentrations between 

animals and humans, and a margin of exposure or 

collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty 

factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human 

extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the 

human population. The long-term workplace 

exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm 

(animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio of estimated human 

exposure/animal exposure) × 1/3 (UF for animal to 

human extrapolation) × 1/10 (UF for variability 

within the human population) exposure) = 250 

ppm. This value was compared against 8-hour 

average concentrations. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0664–0036 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0038. 

166This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm 

from the study, ‘‘Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation 

Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in rats,’’ EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0020 through–0020.4, a 

factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood 

concentrations between animals and humans and a 

margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor 

of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for 

animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for 

variability within the human population. The shortterm workplace exposure value was calculated as 

follows: 51,690 ppm (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio 

of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) = 

98,211 ppm This value was then divided by the 

expected exposure in each scenario, and compared 

against the target margin of exposure of 30. See 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0036 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0664–0038. 

167For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure 

limits of 500 ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm 

over 30 minutes to evaluate risks for these same 

time periods. These are based on the 8-hr 

Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) 

for HFO-1234yf and for short-term exposure, 

assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm 

from the study, ‘‘Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity 

study with HFO-1234yf in rats.’’ Note that EPA 

disagrees with the finding that the acute inhalation 

toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this 

study to show adverse effects at all levels because 

of the presence of grey discoloration in the lungs 

of the test animals. In order to ensure sufficient 

protection, EPA’s risk assessment used a NOAEL 

from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an 

acute study. 

168This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from 

the study, ‘‘An Inhalation Prenatal Developmental 

Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3- 

Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0664–0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account 

for differences in blood concentrations between 

animals and humans, and a margin of exposure or 

collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty 

factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human 

extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the 

human population. The long-term workplace 

exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm 

(animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio of estimated human 

exposure/animal exposure) × 1/3 (UF for animal to 

human extrapolation) × 1/10 (UF for variability 

within the human population) exposure) = 250 

ppm. This value was compared against 8-hour 

average concentrations. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0664–0036 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0038. 

169This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm 

from the study, ‘‘Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation 

Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in rats,’’ EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0020 through–0020.4, a 

factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood 

concentrations between animals and humans and a 

margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor 

of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for 

animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for 

variability within the human population. The shortterm workplace exposure value was calculated as 

follows: 51,690 ppm (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio 

of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) = 

98,211 ppm. This value was then divided by the 

expected exposure in each scenario, and compared 

against the target margin of exposure of 30. See 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0036 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0664–0038. 

170For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure 

limits of 500 ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm 

over 30 minutes to evaluate risks for these same 

time periods. These are based on the 8-hr 

Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) 

for HFO-1234yf and for short-term exposure, 

assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm 

from the study, ‘‘Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity 

study with HFO-1234yf in rats.’’ Note that EPA 

disagrees with the finding that the acute inhalation 

toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this 

study to show adverse effects at all levels because 

of the presence of grey discoloration in the lungs 

of the test animals. In order to ensure sufficient 

protection, EPA’s risk assessment used a NOAEL 

from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an 

acute study. 

171EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07–0601. 

Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036. 

172 ICF International, 2009b. Risk Screen on 

Substitutes for CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. Available 

online at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038. 

173 Ibid. 

contact, if it occurs, would occur in a 

stagnant zone condition. 

EPA also considered whether the 

MVAC systems in diesel vehicles 

require additional analysis, since only 

gasoline vehicles have been used in the 

existing risk assessments. Unlike the LD 

fleet, where few vehicles have diesel 

engines, about half of HD pickup trucks 

and vans use diesel engines (July 13, 

2015; 80 FR 40137). Based on EPA’s 

understanding that MVAC systems and 

passenger compartments will be the 

same in gasoline and diesel engines, and 

surface temperatures within a diesel 

engine are typically lower than those in 

a gasoline vehicle because of the lean 

combustion and more complete 

utilization of thermal energy inherent to 

diesel engines, EPA has determined that 

additional analysis on vehicles with 

diesel engines is not necessary. 

For these reasons, EPA concludes that 

the currently available assessments on 

the use of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles 

are sufficiently conservative to account 

for all possible flammability risks from 

the use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. 

Relying on the same analysis considered 

in support of the 2011 SNAP listing of 

HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, for MVAC in new LD 

vehicles, verifying that more recent 

information is consistent with that 

analysis, and considering unique factors 

for these vehicle types, EPA concludes 

that the use of HFO-1234yf in new 

MVAC systems for MDPVs, HD pickup 

trucks, and complete HD vans does not 

pose greater flammability risk than the 

other alternatives when used in 

accordance with the proposed use 

conditions. 

c. Toxicity 

To evaluate human health and safety 

impacts, including toxicity risks, from 

the use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans, 

the Agency is relying on EPA’s analysis 

conducted in support of the 2011 listing 

decision for HFO-1234yf for LD vehicles 

and information submitted during the 

public comment period of the proposal 

(October 19, 2009; 74 FR 53445) for the 

2011 final decision, including the SAE 

CRP risk assessments. 

In our analysis supporting the 2011 

final decision, EPA compared worker 

exposures to a workplace exposure limit 

of 250 ppm 165 over an 8-hour timeweighted average for long-term 

occupational exposure to HFO-1234yf, 

For short-term occupational exposure to 

HFO-1234yf, we compared worker 

exposure to an acute exposure limit of 

98,211 ppm, divided by a margin of 

exposure of 30, for a value of 3,270 ppm 

over 30 minutes.166 167

Concerning workplace exposure, we 

expect that professional technicians 

have proper training and certification 

and have the proper equipment and 

knowledge to minimize their risks due 

to exposure to refrigerant from an 

MVAC system. Thus, worker exposure 

to HFO-1234yf is expected to be low. If 

workers service MVAC systems using 

certified refrigerant recovery equipment 

after receiving training and testing, 

exposure levels to HFO-1234yf are 

estimated to be on the order of 4 to 8.5 

ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted 

average (as compared with a 250 ppm 

workplace exposure limit) 168 and 122 

ppm on a 30-minute average (as 

compared with a short-term exposure 

level of 98,211 ppm divided by a 

[margin of exposure of 30, for a value of 

3270 ppm over 30 minutes 169 170).171 172

We also analyzed exposure levels 

during manufacture and final 

disposition at vehicle end-of-life, and 

found that they would be no higher than 

28 ppm on a 15-minute average or 8.5 

ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted 

average.173 The manufacture, use, and 

disposal or recycling of HFO-1234yf 

MVAC systems are not expected to 

present a toxicity risk to workers. Other 

alternatives such as HFC-134a and HFC152a also do not present a toxicity risk 

to workers in the same scenarios; 

therefore, HFO-1234yf poses the same or 

less risk than other alternatives. 

EPA’s review of consumer risks from 

toxicity of HFO-1234yf indicated that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22865 

174http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0056. 

175The AEGL–2 is defined as ‘‘the airborne 

concentration of a substance . . . above which it is 

predicted that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long lasting adverse 

effects or an impaired ability to escape.’’ http://

www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/define.htm. 

176 If we assume 250 million passenger vehicles 

in the U.S. and typical driving times of 500 hours 

per year per vehicle, a risk of 4.6 × 10¥12 per 

operating hour equates roughly to one event every 

2 years for all drivers in the entire United States. 

177Regulations.gov, EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664– 

0056.2. 

178Regulations.gov, EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664– 

0086.1. 

potential consumer (passenger) 

exposure from a refrigerant leak into the 

passenger compartment of a vehicle is 

not expected to present an unreasonable 

risk. The consumer risks due to 

exposure to HFC-152a and HFC-134a are 

comparable to those of HFO-1234yf, 

with exposure levels expected to be 

below relevant exposure limits such as 

their cardiotoxic NOAELs. The 

consumer toxicity risks due to CO2 are 

mitigated by the use conditions for that 

refrigerant, resulting in comparable risks 

to other alternatives. 

In addition to analyzing exposure to 

the refrigerant, EPA and the SAE CRPs 

have also considered risks of generating 

hydrogen fluoride (HF) from 

combustion of HFO-1234yf. With 

regards to consumer risks from the use 

of HFO-1234yf in MVAC systems, we 

have considered information concerning 

consumer exposure to HF from thermal 

decomposition or combustion of HFO1234yf. The 2009 CRP risk assessments 

analyzed potential concentrations of 

HFO-1234yf, from a leak inside the 

passenger compartment, and HF, from 

thermal decomposition or ignition, in 

the passenger compartment. SAE CRP 

members conducted testing to measure 

HF concentrations and to identify 

factors that were most likely to lead to 

HF formation.174 One test on HF 

concentrations inside a car cabin found 

maximum concentrations were in the 

range of zero to 35 ppm in trials both 

with HFO-1234yf and with HFC-134a, 

with concentrations dropping to 10 ppm 

or less after 10 minutes. In a second test 

of HF generated in the engine 

compartment, HF concentrations from 

thermal decomposition of HFO-1234yf 

reached as high as 120 ppm in the 

engine compartment in the worst case, 

with interior passenger cabin values of 

40 to 80 ppm. Under the same extreme 

conditions (flash ignition, temperature 

of 700 °C, closed hood), HF 

concentrations from thermal 

decomposition of HFC-134a reached 

36.1 ppm in the engine compartment 

with interior passenger cabin values of 

two to eight ppm. The other trials with 

less extreme conditions found HF 

concentrations from HFO-1234yf in the 

engine compartment of zero to 8 ppm. 

The SAE CRP selected an Acute 

Exposure Guideline Limit (AEGL)-2 of 

95 ppm over 10 minutes as its criterion 

for determining toxicity risk from HF.175

Thus, even assuming levels inside a 

passenger compartment reached the 

highest level that occurred during the 

tests—80 ppm—a passenger inside a 

vehicle would at worst experience 

discomfort and irritation, rather than 

any permanent effects. HF levels that 

could result in similar effects were also 

observed for HFC-134a. The SAE CRP 

concluded that the probability of such a 

worst-case event is on the order of 

10¥12 occurrences per operating 

hour.176 177 This level of risk is similar 

to the current level of risk of HF 

generated from HFC-134a.178 To date, 

EPA is unaware of any reports of 

consumers affected by HF generated by 

HFC-134a, which has been used in 

automobile MVAC systems across the 

industry since 1993. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that when used in accordance 

with use conditions, HFO-1234yf does 

not pose greater risk overall to human 

health and the environment than other 

alternatives. 

SAE CRP1234–4 considered the need 

to reevaluate HF exposure due to 

decomposition or ignition of HFO1234yf and determined it was 

unnecessary. This decision considered 

that: The risks of HF evaluated in the 

earlier CRP were not significantly 

different from the risks of HF generation 

during use of HFC-134a; a presentation 

from the German automobile 

manufacturing industry group VDA 

found that thermal decomposition 

would not lead to significant amounts of 

HF and confirmed that there is not 

expected to be additional risk due to HF 

from HFO-1234yf compared to HFC134a. In addition, the CRP1234–4 

considered new scenarios where an 

individual might not be able to leave a 

car; however, it is expected that because 

HF is irritating, individuals will leave 

the area unless they are unable to do so. 

The CRP1234–4 also considered that 

mitigating factors specific to HF, such as 

convection of HF away from the vehicle 

due to the heat of a fire, mean that the 

factors already analyzed were likely to 

be very conservative. Finally, the 

CRP1234–4 was aware of studies 

conducted by the CRP for a refrigerant 

blend, referred to as ‘‘CRP MRB,’’ that 

found HF from HFO-1234yf along the 

side of a vehicle never exceeded the 

health-based HF limit of 95 ppm, even 

in the case of fire. This additional 

information confirms that the consumer 

risks from generation of HF are no 

greater than in EPA’s 2011 evaluation. 

Further, risks of generation of HF are 

comparable to those from HFC-134a, 

and likely also from HFC-152a. CO2

contains no fluorine, and thus, there are 

no risks due to HF generation. 

EPA did not analyze toxicity concerns 

from the generation of HF in the 

workplace. In its December 17, 2009, 

Risk Assessment for Alternative 

Refrigerants HFO-1234yf and R-744 

(CO2), the SAE CRP indicated that 

‘‘service technicians will be 

knowledgeable about the potential for 

HF generation and will immediately 

move away from the area when they 

perceive the irritancy of HF prior to 

being exposed above a health-based 

limit’’ (EPA-HQ–OAR–2008–0664– 

0056.2). Because the potential to form 

HF from HFO-1234yf is similar to that 

from other MVAC refrigerants and 

because service technicians, recyclers, 

and disposers have historically handled 

refrigerants with the same concern, 

including HFC-134a which is the most 

commonly used refrigerant, EPA 

concludes that HFO-1234yf does not 

pose greater risk in the workplace with 

regard to HF generation than other 

available or potentially alternatives. 

4. What are the proposed use 

conditions? 

All MVAC refrigerants listed as 

acceptable are subject to use conditions 

requiring labeling and the use of unique 

fittings. HFC-152a and CO2 are subject 

to additional use conditions mitigating 

flammability and toxicity as appropriate 

to the alternative. None of these 

alternative refrigerants can simply be 

‘‘dropped’’ into existing HFC-134a AC 

systems because they are listed as 

acceptable only for newly manufactured 

vehicles. 

EPA is proposing to list HFO-1234yf 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

because the use conditions are 

necessary to ensure that use of HFO1234yf will not have a significantly 

greater overall impact on human health 

and the environment than other 

alternatives for use in MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. 

EPA is proposing to require the same 

use conditions for HFO-1234yf in the 

HD vehicle types included in today’s 

proposal that are currently required for 

the use of HFO-1234yf in newly 

manufactured LD vehicles. Because of 

the similarities in the MVAC systems 

used for these vehicles, these use 

conditions will be sufficiently 

protective to ensure use of HFO-1234yf 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22866 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

179Service for consideration means receiving 

something of worth or value to perform service, 

whether in money, credit, goods, or services. 

180 40 CFR 1037.5(c). 

in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans does not pose 

significantly greater risk than use of 

other alternatives. 

The first use condition requires that 

MVAC systems designed to use HFO1234yf must meet the requirements of 

SAE J639, ‘‘Safety Standards for Motor 

Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compression 

Systems.’’ This standard sets safety 

standards that include unique fittings; a 

warning label indicating the 

refrigerant’s identity and that it is a 

flammable refrigerant; and requirements 

for engineering design strategies that 

include a high-pressure compressor 

cutoff switch and pressure relief 

devices. This use condition also 

requires that for connections with 

refrigerant containers for use in 

professional servicing, use fittings must 

be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised 

October 2011). SAE J639 (2011 version) 

which specifies quick-connect fittings 

that are different from those for any 

other refrigerant. The low-side service 

port and connections will have an 

outside diameter of 14 mm (0.551 

inches) and the high-side service port 

will have an outside diameter of 17 mm 

(0.669 inches), both accurate to within 

2 mm. Under SAE J2844 (revised 

October 2011), containers of HFO1234yf for use in professional servicing 

of MVAC systems must have a lefthanded screw valve with a diameter of 

0.5 inches and Acme (trapezoidal) 

thread with 16 threads per inch. The 

SAE standards do not include and EPA 

has not received a submission for 

unique fittings for small containers of 

HFO-1234yf refrigerant. 

Consistent with the conclusion EPA 

drew at the time of the EPA’s listing 

decision for HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles 

relied, EPA believes that the safety 

requirements that are included in SAE 

J639 sufficiently mitigate risks of both 

HF generation and refrigerant ignition 

(March 29, 2011; 76 FR 17488) for 

MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans subject to this 

proposed action. HFO-1234yf is mildly 

flammable (2L classification) and, like 

other fluorinated refrigerants, can 

decompose to form the toxic compound 

HF when exposed to flame or to 

sufficient heat. The SAE J639 standard 

can also address flammability and HF 

risks of HFO-1234yf for MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. 

For example, SAE J639 provides for a 

pressure relief device designed to 

minimize direct impingement of the 

refrigerant and oil on hot surfaces and 

for design of the refrigerant circuit and 

connections to avoid refrigerant entering 

the passenger cabin. The pressure 

release device ensures that pressure in 

the system will not reach an unsafe 

level that might cause an uncontrolled 

leak of refrigerant, such as if the AC 

system is overcharged. The pressure 

release device will reduce the likelihood 

that refrigerant leaks would reach hot 

surfaces that might lead to either 

ignition or formation of HF. Designing 

the refrigerant circuit and connections 

to avoid refrigerant entering the 

passenger cabin ensures that if there is 

a leak, the refrigerant is unlikely to enter 

the passenger cabin. Keeping refrigerant 

out of the passenger cabin minimizes 

the possibility that there would be 

sufficient levels of refrigerant to reach 

flammable concentrations or that HF 

would be formed and transported where 

passengers might be exposed. 

The second use condition requires the 

manufacturer of MVAC systems and 

vehicles to conduct Failure Mode and 

Effects Analysis (FMEA) as provided in 

SAE J1739 (adopted 2009) and keep 

records of the FMEA on file for three 

years from the date of creation. SAE 

J1739 (adopted 2009) describes a FMEA 

as ‘‘a systematic group of activities 

intended to: (a) Recognize and evaluate 

the potential failure of a product/

process and the effects and causes of 

that failure, (b) identify actions that 

could eliminate or reduce the change of 

the potential failure occurring, and (c) 

document the process.’’ Through the 

FMEA, OEMs determine the appropriate 

protective strategies necessary to ensure 

the safe use of HFO-1234yf across their 

vehicle fleet. It is standard industry 

practice to perform the FMEA and to 

keep it on file while the vehicle is in 

production and for several years 

afterwards. As with the previous use 

condition, this use condition is 

intended to ensure that new MDPVs, HD 

pickup trucks, and complete HD vans 

manufactured with HFO-1234yf MVAC 

systems are specifically designed to 

minimize release of the refrigerant into 

the passenger cabin or onto hot surfaces 

that might result in ignition or in 

generation of HF. 

5. When would the listing apply? 

EPA proposes that this listing would 

apply 30 days after the date of 

publication of a final rule. This date, the 

same as the proposed effective date of 

this regulation, allows for the safe use 

of this substitute at the earliest 

opportunity. 

6. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

a. CAA Sections 608 and 609 

CAA section 609 establishes 

standards and requirements regarding 

servicing of MVAC systems. Under 

section 609, no person repairing or 

servicing motor vehicles for 

consideration 179 may perform any 

service on an MVAC that involves the 

refrigerant without properly using 

approved refrigerant recovery or 

recovery and recycling equipment and 

no such person may perform such 

service unless such person has been 

properly trained and certified. 

Refrigerant handling equipment must be 

certified by EPA or an independent 

organization approved by EPA. EPA has 

issued regulations interpreting this 

statutory requirement and those 

regulations are codified at subpart B of 

40 CFR part 82. The statutory and 

regulatory provisions regarding MVAC 

servicing apply to all refrigerant 

alternatives and application is not 

limited to ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

Today’s proposal will not have a direct 

impact on EPA’s regulations under 

section 609. 

Section 608 of the CAA prohibits the 

intentional release (venting) of all 

refrigerants except those specifically 

exempted; because HFO-1234yf is not 

exempt, intentional release from MVAC 

systems of MDVPs, HD pickup trucks, 

and HD vans addressed in this action 

would be prohibited if the decision to 

list HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to 

use conditions is finalized. MVAC endof-life disposal and recycling 

specifications are also covered under 

section 608 of the CAA and our 

regulations issued under that section of 

the Act, which are codified at subpart F 

of 40 CFR part 82. 

b. Would this action listing HFO-1234yf 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans affect EPA’s LD GHG 

standards? 

Today’s proposal to list HFO-1234yf 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

if finalized, will have no direct effect on 

the MY 2017–2025 light-duty vehicle 

GHG standards since today’s proposed 

action applies to HD vehicles, not light 

duty. We raise the issue here, however, 

because today’s proposed action would 

apply to MPDVs. As noted above in 

section V.B.1.a., although MDPVs are 

classified as HD vehicles based on their 

GVWR, due to their similarities to LD 

vehicles, GHG emissions from MDPVs 

are regulated under the LD GHG and 

fuel economy standards, and they are 

excluded from the HD GHG and fuel 

economy standards.180

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22867 

181 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). 182 77 FR 62804–809. 

Nonetheless, this proposed action 

would have no direct effect on the 

regulations on MDPVs established 

under the LD GHG standards. Those 

standards are established by rule and 

EPA is not reopening that rule in this 

action. We do note, however, that 

today’s proposal is relevant to one of the 

compliance flexibilities in that rule. As 

part of the MY 2017–2025 LD GHG 

rule,181 EPA established the availability 

of credits for the use of alternative 

refrigerants with lower GWPs than that 

of HFC-134a. If EPA lists HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable for MDPVs under SNAP, as 

proposed, vehicle manufacturers will be 

able to obtain credits for the use of HFO1234yf in these vehicles as allowed for 

in the MY 2017–2025 LD GHG rule. The 

LD GHG standards do not require any 

specific means of compliance, so 

manufacturers have the flexibility to 

either switch refrigerants or to comply 

with the standards by other means.182

c. Would this action listing HFO-1234yf 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

for certain HD vehicles affect EPA’s HD 

GHG standards? 

The Phase 1 HD GHG rules divided 

the industry into three discrete 

categories—combination tractors, heavyduty pickups and vans, and vocational 

vehicles. The Phase 1 rules also set 

separate standards for engines that 

power vocational vehicles and 

combination tractors—based on the 

relative degree of homogeneity among 

vehicles within each category (76 FR 

57106; September 15, 2011). On July 13, 

2015, EPA and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

proposed Phase 2 HD GHG standards 

that would build on existing Phase 1 HD 

GHG standards, and also proposed GHG 

standards for certain trailers used in 

combination with HD tractors (80 FR 

40137; July 12, 2015). Today’s proposal, 

should EPA adopt it, will have no direct 

effect on the HD GHG standards, either 

for Phase 1 or the proposed Phase 2. 

As part of today’s action, EPA is 

proposing to list HFO-1234yf as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 

complete HD vans. HD pickup trucks 

and vans are one of the categories of HD 

vehicles regulated under the Phase 1 HD 

GHG standards, and proposed to be 

further regulated under the Phase 2 

program. As part of the Phase 1 HD GHG 

standards, EPA finalized a low leakage 

requirement of 1.50 percent leakage per 

year for AC systems installed in HD 

trucks and vans and combination 

tractors for model years 2014 and later. 

EPA finalized a standard of 1.50 percent 

leakage per year for heavy-duty pickup 

trucks and vans and combination 

tractors. See section II.E.5 of Phase 1 HD 

GHG standard preamble (76 FR 57194– 

57195) for further discussion of the 

MVAC leakage standard. 

As part of the NPRM for Phase 2 of 

the HD GHG standards (80 FR 40343; 

July 12, 2015), EPA proposed regulatory 

provisions that would be in place if and 

when lower-GWP alternative 

refrigerants are approved and adopted 

by manufacturers of HD vehicles. EPA 

proposed to adopt the same MVAC 

leakage standard for vocational vehicles 

as apply for pickups and vans, and for 

combination tractors. If adopted, these 

provisions would have the effect of 

easing the burden associated with 

complying with the lower-leakage 

requirements when a lower-GWP 

refrigerant is used instead of HFC-134a. 

These provisions would recognize that 

leakage of refrigerants would be 

relatively less damaging from a climate 

perspective if one of the lower-GWP 

alternatives is used. Specifically, EPA 

proposed to allow a manufacturer to be 

‘‘deemed to comply’’ with the leakage 

standard set through the Phase 1 

regulations by using a lower-GWP 

alternative refrigerant. EPA proposed 

that in order to be ‘‘deemed to comply’’ 

the vehicle manufacturer would need to 

use a refrigerant other than HFC-134a 

that is listed as an acceptable alternative 

refrigerant for heavy-duty MVAC 

systems under SNAP, and defined 

under the LD GHG regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1867–12(e) (80 FR 40343–44; July 12, 

2015). The lower-GWP refrigerants 

currently defined at 40 CFR 86.1867– 

12(e) are HFC-152a, HFO-1234yf, and 

CO2. 

If HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable 

under SNAP for use in HD pickup 

trucks and complete HD vans, as 

proposed, and if the incentive proposed 

in the Phase 2 HD NPRM is finalized, 

these types of HD vehicles 

manufactured with HFO-1234yf MVAC 

systems will be ‘‘deemed to comply’’ 

with the low leakage standard. 

7. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposed action. EPA is 

particularly interested in any additional 

exposure scenarios or unique 

characteristics of the types of HD 

vehicles included in today’s action as 

compared to LD vehicles where HFO1234yf has previously been listed as 

acceptable. In addition, EPA also 

specifically requests comment on 

whether the proposed use conditions 

are adequately protective for MDPVs, 

HD pickup truck, and complete HD 

vans, or whether more protective use 

conditions are necessary. If a 

commenter believes more protective use 

conditions are necessary, the 

commenter should identify what 

additional, more protective use 

conditions could be implemented. 

With regard to incomplete HD pickup 

trucks and vans, EPA requests 

information on any modifications to 

incomplete HD pickup trucks by 

secondary manufacturers that could 

result in modifying the OEM-installed 

MVAC system. Concerning incomplete 

HD vans, at this time, EPA does not 

have information on all potential 

vehicle conversions that could be made 

by secondary manufacturers or the 

impact those conversions may have 

with regard to the SNAP criteria. Due to 

lack of information on potential vehicle 

conversions, EPA cannot assess whether 

or not the same risk analysis used for 

complete HD vans would be applicable 

to all incomplete HD vans. However, 

EPA is aware that for some incomplete 

HD vans, secondary manufacturers do 

not modify the MVAC systems. An 

example of an incomplete HD van that 

is manufactured by the OEM with cabin 

cooling that is not altered by the 

secondary manufacturer might be a HD 

van customized by a secondary 

manufacturer for transportation of 

persons with disabilities. In this 

situation, the secondary manufacturer 

would install wheelchair ramps, lifts, 

and other equipment to meet the needs 

of their customer in an incomplete HD 

van from the OEM without making any 

modifications to the OEM-installed 

MVAC system. However, some 

secondary manufacturers may alter the 

OEM MVAC system design based on 

their needs (e.g., alter the MVAC system 

to provide cooling to the back of a 

vehicle). We request comments on 

whether there is a distinction that can 

be made between HD vans that could 

not have the MVAC systems modified 

and those that could have the MVAC 

systems modified. EPA is not including 

these vehicle types in this proposed 

action but is interested in receiving 

information on this topic. If such 

information clearly indicates that 

necessary distinctions can be made, and 

EPA establishes that use of HFO-1234yf 

in these vehicles will not result in 

greater overall risk to human health and 

the environment, the Agency would 

consider taking further rulemaking 

action to include a subset of incomplete 

HD vans in the listing of HFO-1234yf 

instead. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22868 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Additional risk analysis would be 

necessary prior to considering a listing 

decision for HFO-1234yf in all 

incomplete HD vans, especially on those 

for which the OEM-installed MVAC 

system may be altered. EPA requests 

comment on secondary manufacturer 

modifications that are likely for HD vans 

and, we welcome information on the 

types of modifications that could result 

in altering the MVAC system installed 

by the OEMs and the procedures for 

those modifications. EPA requests 

information on potential exposure 

scenarios, and is especially interested in 

information relevant to risk assessment 

such as charge sizes, the ratio of charge 

size to cabin size, exposure levels, 

potential for leaks and for ignition 

events, and means of mitigating risks 

during system modifications by the 

secondary manufacturer, and 

subsequently during the useful life of 

the vehicle. This information may be 

used to inform a future listing. 

Additionally, EPA requests 

information on development of HFO1234yf MVAC systems for other HD 

vehicle types or off-road vehicles, or 

plans to develop these systems in the 

future. This information may be used to 

inform a future listing. 

C. Foam Blowing Agents 

1. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

HFC Foam Blowing Agents for Rigid PU 

Spray Foam 

As provided in the following table, for 

rigid PU spray foam, EPA is proposing 

to list as acceptable, subject to narrowed 

use limits, numerous foam blowing 

agents for military or space- and 

aeronautics-related applications, and 

change the status from acceptable to 

unacceptable for all other uses: 

TABLE 17—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN RIGID PU SPRAY FOAM

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Rigid PU: Spray foam—highpressure two-component.HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, 

and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 

13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC365mfc; and Formacel TI.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related applications * as of 

January 1, 2020. 

Unacceptable for all applications other than military or 

space- and aeronautics-related applications as of 

January 1, 2020. 

Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2025. 

Rigid PU: Spray foam—lowpressure two-component.HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, 

and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 

13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC365mfc; and Formacel TI.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or 

space- and aeronautics-related applications * as of 

January 1, 2021. 

Unacceptable for all applications other than military or 

space- and aeronautics-related applications as of 

January 1, 2021. 

Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2025. 

Rigid PU: Spray foam—one 

component foam sealants.

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, 

and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 

13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC365mfc; and Formacel TI.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. 

* Under the narrowed use limit, an end user must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due 

to performance or safety requirements. 

EPA is proposing to change the 

listings from acceptable to unacceptable, 

for HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa; 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC-365mfc; and the HFC 

blend Formacel TI for use in rigid PU 

spray foam, with the exception of 

certain narrowed use limits for military, 

space, and aeronautics uses. See section 

VI.C.3 for how these proposed changes 

would apply to imported foam products. 

In the NPRM published on August 6, 

2014, EPA proposed to change the 

listings from acceptable to unacceptable 

for HFC-134a and blends thereof, and 

the HFC blend Formacel TI for spray 

foam as of January 1, 2017 (79 FR 

46149). In that proposal, EPA stated that 

a number of nonflammable HFCs and 

HFC blends, such as HFC-245fa, blends 

of HFC-365mfc with at least four 

percent HFC-245fa by weight, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and 

HFC-227ea, with seven to 13 percent 

HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC365mfc, were available and posed 

significantly less risk in the spray foam 

end-uses. We noted that these available 

HFC foam blowing agents provide a 

non-flammable alternative where there 

are flammability concerns associated 

with in situ use and use with 

pressurized spray pumps that meant 

most flammable foam blowing agents 

were not feasible for use based on the 

current state of knowledge (79 FR 

46149, 46152; August 6, 2014). After 

considering the comments received on 

the proposed rule, EPA deferred taking 

final action on spray foam in the final 

rule. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of 

the preamble to the final rule (80 FR 

42870; July 20, 2015). 

a. What is the affected end-use? 

In the past, EPA combined spray 

foam, commercial refrigeration foam, 

sandwich panels, and marine flotation 

foam within a single end-use: rigid PU 

spray foam. However, because of 

differences in the exposure and fire 

safety characteristics of these uses as 

well as the fact that different 

alternatives are generally used for each 

of these applications, EPA more recently 

created separate end-use listings for 

each of these applications. See 80 FR 

42870; July 20, 2015. Commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels 

include insulation for walls, pipes 

(including ‘‘pipe-in-pipe’’), metal doors, 

vending machines, refrigerated and 

unrefrigerated coolers, refrigerated 

transport vehicles, and other laboratory 

and commercial refrigeration 

equipment, as well as foam for 

taxidermy. These foams may be injected 

or applied using ‘‘pour-in-place’’ 

equipment, depending on the agent 

used and on whether the formulation is 

pressurized. Marine flotation foam 

includes buoyancy or flotation foam 

used in construction of boats and ships. 

These foams typically are injected into 

a cavity in the boat wall from a twocanister (A- and B-side) system under 

lower pressures and they provide 

structure as well as buoyancy. Rigid PU 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22869 

183Low-pressure two-component spray foam kits 

should only be used by trained professionals. The 

polyurethanes industry has guidance on how to use 

low pressure kits available at: http://

spraypolyurethane.org/spf-chemical-health-andsafety-training and at http://spraypolyurethane.org/ 

Main-Menu-Category/Weatherization-Contractors/

Installing-SPF. 

184We note that neat HFC-365mfc has never been 

listed as acceptable for use in spray foam. 

185EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

spray foam, hereafter called ‘‘spray 

foam,’’ includes insulation for roofing, 

walls, doors, and other construction 

uses, as well as foam for building 

breakers for pipelines. These foams are 

rigid with closed cells that still contain 

the foam blowing agent, which can 

contribute to the foam’s ability to 

insulate. Spray foam may have similar 

chemistry to other rigid PU end-uses, 

but it differs by being sprayed onto a 

surface in the location where it is to be 

used, either when constructing a new 

building or when adding insulation to 

an existing building, rather than being 

injected or poured or being produced in 

a manufacturing facility. As a result, it 

may be more difficult to provide 

engineered ventilation during 

application of spray foam than for other 

foam end-uses. The proposed action 

applies only to this last end-use—spray 

foam and we have identified three 

distinct and separate spray foam 

applications for this end-use: (1) Highpressure two-component, (2) lowpressure two-component, and (3) onecomponent foam sealants. 

i. High-Pressure Two-Component Spray 

Foam 

High-pressure two-component spray 

foam products are pressurized 800–1600 

psi during manufacture, are sold in 

pressurized containers as two parts (i.e., 

A-side and B-side), and are sprayed in 

the field for thermal insulation and air 

sealing of buildings and in roofing 

applications. In the United States, Side 

A typically contains methylene 

diphenyl isocyanate (MDI), consisting of 

monomeric MDI and higher molecular 

weight oligomers. Side B typically 

contains polyols and a mixture of other 

chemicals, including catalysts, flame 

retardants, blowing agents, and 

surfactants. High-pressure twocomponent spray foam is blown and 

applied in situ using high-pressure 

pumps to propel the foam components, 

and thus, may use liquid blowing agents 

without an additional propellant. 

Common liquid foam blowing agents 

used in high-pressure two-component 

spray foam include HFC-245fa; blends 

of HFC-365mfc with at least four 

percent HFC-245fa; and commercial 

blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 

percent HFC-227ea and the remainder 

HFC-365mfc. This type of spray foam is 

applied by professionals who wear 

personal protective equipment (PPE) 

while applying high-density foam 

insulation for roofing or walls. The 

amount of resin and foam blowing agent 

is more than for low-pressure twocomponent spray foam and for onecomponent spray foam sealants. Highpressure two-component spray foam 

comprises the largest portion of the 

spray foam market. 

ii. Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray 

Foam 

Low-pressure two-component spray 

foam products are pressurized to less 

than 250 psi during manufacture, are 

sold in pressurized containers as two 

parts (i.e., A-side & B-side), and are 

sprayed in the field for thermal 

insulation and air sealing of buildings. 

Low-pressure two-component spray 

foams are typically applied in situ 

relying upon a gaseous foam blowing 

agent that also serves as a propellant; 

pumps typically are not needed. This 

end-use category has primarily used the 

gaseous blowing agent HFC-134a; the 

Foams Technical Option Committee has 

also identified CO2 and water as 

options. Low-pressure two-component 

spray foam is usually applied by home 

improvement contractors to fill in 

cracks and gaps in a residence using kits 

that are available for sale.183 The 

amount of resin and foam blowing agent 

is smaller than for high-pressure twocomponent spray foam. 

iii. One-Component Spray Foam 

Sealants 

One-component foam sealants are 

packaged in aerosol cans and are 

applied in situ using a gaseous foam 

blowing agent that is also the propellant 

for the aerosol formulation. Because the 

SNAP program has not expressly 

identified one-component spray foam 

sealants in the past descriptions of the 

end-use, manufacturers of onecomponent foam sealants may have 

considered acceptable substitutes in the 

larger rigid PU: Commercial 

refrigeration, spray, and sandwich panel 

end-use to apply for this end-use or 

acceptable propellants in the aerosol 

sector to apply. This end-use category 

primarily uses light saturated HCs as the 

blowing agent, as well as HFCs such as 

HFC-134a and HFC-152a. This type of 

spray foam may be used by consumers 

and by home improvement contractors 

in order to seal cracks and leaks in a 

residence, as well as used for pest 

management. The total amount of resin 

and foam blowing agent is smaller than 

for low-pressure two-component spray 

foam. 

b. Which foam blowing agents is EPA 

proposing to list as unacceptable? 

EPA is proposing to change the status 

of the following HFCs and HFC blends 

that are currently listed as acceptable 

foam blowing agents for use in spray 

foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa; 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel 

TI.184

c. How do the proposed unacceptable 

blowing agents compare to other 

blowing agents for these applications 

with respect to SNAP criteria? 

HFCs have been widely used as 

blowing agents in spray foam in the 

United States since the phaseout of ODS 

blowing agents such as HCFC-141b, 

particularly where insulation value and 

flammability have been of greater 

concern. Over the past ten years, the 

number of available alternatives has 

increased and the variety of uses for 

acceptable blowing agents has also 

expanded. A number of new foam 

blowing agents with low GWPs, both 

fluorinated and non-fluorinated, have 

been introduced during the past several 

years. Many end users have indicated 

interest in these newer alternatives, 

often to improve energy efficiency of the 

foam products manufactured with the 

foam blowing agent. Production 

volumes for some of these newer 

substitutes are expanding rapidly to 

keep pace with growing demand. 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks (e.g., 

flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 185 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22870 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

186Wang 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. 

187Patten 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. 

i. Environmental Impacts 

The HFCs that we are proposing to 

find unacceptable have GWPs ranging 

from 1,030 for HFC-245fa to 1,430 for 

HFC-134a. The HFC blends that we are 

proposing to find unacceptable have 

GWPs that vary depending on the 

specific composition; the range of GWPs 

for blends is 740 to 1,030 for blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at least four percent 

HFC-245fa, 900 to 1,100 for commercial 

blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 

percent HFC-227ea and the remainder 

HFC-365mfc, and 1,330 to 

approximately 1,500 for Formacel TI. 

Alternatives for all three spray foam 

applications include CO2, water, Exxsol 

blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFC-152a, 

HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. As shown in 

Table 18, these alternatives have GWPs 

ranging from zero to 1,430. In addition, 

for one-component foam sealants only, 

light saturated HCs are acceptable, with 

GWPs in the range of three to 15. For 

high-pressure two-component spray 

foam only, HFO-1336mzz(Z) is 

acceptable, with a GWP of 

approximately nine. These GWPs are 

significantly lower than the GWPs of 

740 to 1,430 for the HFC and HFC blend 

substitutes subject to the proposed 

change of status. 

TABLE 18—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN RIGID POLYURETHANE HIGH-PRESSURE TWOCOMPONENT SPRAY FOAM, LOW-PRESSURE TWO-COMPONENT SPRAY FOAM, AND RIGID PU ONE-COMPONENT FOAM

SEALANTS 1 2

Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Rigid PU High-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam 

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; 

and Formacel® TI.

790–1,430 0 No ............... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits 2 or unacceptable. 

CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid; HFC-152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM 1233ze(E)) 1; Water.

0–124 0–0.00034 No .............. No change. 

Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z) ................................. >1–9 0 Yes ............. No change. 

Rigid PU Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam 

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; 

and Formacel® TI.

794–1,430 0 No ............... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use 

limits 2 or unacceptable. 

CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-ene; Water.0–124 0–0.00034 No .............. No change. 

Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z) ................................. >1–9 0 Yes ............. No change. 

Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants 

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; 

and Formacel® TI.

790–1,430 0 No ............... Unacceptable. 

CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; HFO-1234ze; Methyl Formate; trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water.0–124 0–0.00034 No ............... No change. 

Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z); Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6.>1–9 0 Yes ............. No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or additives combined with other acceptable 

blowing agents. 2For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications. 

All of the HFCs and HFC blends for 

which we are proposing a change of 

status to unacceptable consist of 

compounds that are non-ozonedepleting. Of all of the alternatives in 

the three applications affected by the 

proposed change of status listed above, 

only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-ene contains chlorine and thus might 

have an ODP. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene 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-use that are 

considered to be non-ozonedepleting.186 187

All of the HFCs and HFC blends for 

which we are proposing a change of 

status to unacceptable consist of 

compounds that are excluded from the 

definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. With 

the exception of light saturated HCs (for 

one-component foam sealants only), 

Exxsol blowing agents (for all spray 

foam applications) and HFO1336mzz(Z) (for high-pressure twocomponent spray foam only), the other 

alternatives contain compounds that are 

not VOC (i.e., water) or are excluded 

from the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS (e.g., 

CO2, component of ecomate, HFO1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene). Based on the small 

anticipated usage of hydrocarbons and 

of Exxsol blowing agents, and due to 

existing state regulations affecting 

aerosol products that may include oncecomponent foam sealants, we do not 

expect these alternative to have a 

significantly greater impact on local air 

quality than other available alternatives 

in these applications. The manufacturer 

of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA 

to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the 

definition of VOC under those 

regulations. As provided in our 

decisions listing these substitutes as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22871 

188UNEP, 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. 

189FTOC, 2011. Report of the Rigid and Flexible 

Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 

Assessment. This document is accessible at: http:// 

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

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

190Public and private sector commitments made 

at the White House Roundtable on October 15, 2015 

is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obamaadministration-and-private-sector-leadersannounce. 

acceptable, we determined that 

emissions of these alternatives in this 

end use would not pose a significantly 

greater risk than that posed by foam 

blowing agents that are not VOCs. 

ii. Flammability 

All of the HFCs and HFC blends for 

which we are proposing a change of 

status are nonflammable. There has 

been use of blends of HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a, composition unspecified, in 

the past; those blends may be flammable 

depending on the exact composition. 

HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), 

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

ene are nonflammable blowing agents 

that have recently been listed as 

acceptable. The manufacturers of the 

flammable alternatives Exxsol blowing 

agents and ecomateTM have developed 

training to assist users of high-pressure 

two-component spray foam users in 

addressing the flammability hazards of 

these flammable foam blowing agents in 

this end-use and thereby minimize 

flammability risks.188 189

Use of flammable blowing agents in 

spray foam can be an issue. Spray foam 

is frequently used in situ in commercial 

and residential buildings and it is not 

practical to make all electrical fixtures 

explosion proof or to add engineered 

ventilation when applying spray foam 

in place in many circumstances. As 

mentioned above, flammability is a 

major issue for high-pressure and lowpressure two-component spray foam. 

Thus, all acceptable substitutes in these 

applications either are nonflammable or 

else are flammable but information in 

EPA’s possession indicates there are 

measures available to mitigate 

flammability risk. 

iii. Toxicity 

Both the HFC substitutes for which 

we are proposing a change of status and 

other alternatives have workplace 

exposure limits, either as regulatory 

requirements (i.e., OSHA PEL) or as a 

recommendation (e.g., AIHA WEEL, 

ACGIH TLV or manufacturer 

recommended workplace exposure 

limits). Proper training, use of PPE, and 

use of ventilation should be adhered to 

when applying spray foam. As we 

determined at the time that we listed 

both the substitutes for which we are 

proposing a status change and the other 

available alternatives, they can be used 

consistent with the relevant workplace 

exposure limits in spray foam. 

iv. Summary 

EPA is proposing to find HFC-134a, 

HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and 

HFC-227ea, containing seven to 13 

percent HFC-227ea and the remainder 

HFC-365mfc; blends of HFC-365mfc and 

at least four percent HFC-245fa; and 

Formacel TI unacceptable in spray foam 

because there are other available or 

potentially available alternatives that 

reduce risk overall compared to these 

foam blowing agents. EPA has listed as 

acceptable several alternatives that pose 

lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment than the blowing 

agents whose status we are proposing to 

change to unacceptable. The risks other 

than GWP are not significantly different 

for the alternatives than for the blowing 

agents we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, and the GWPs for the 

blowing agents we are proposing to list 

as unacceptable are significantly higher 

and thus pose significantly greater risk. 

d. What narrowed use limits for military 

or space- and aeronautics-related 

applications is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing an time-limited 

exception to the proposed 

unacceptability determination for HFC 

and HFC blend foam blowing agents for 

military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications when used in low 

pressure two-component and high 

pressure two-component spray foam. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing a 

narrowed use limit that would expire on 

January 1, 2025. As provided in section 

e below, the vast majority of 

applications for spray foams are 

anticipated to be able to transition to 

acceptable alternatives by January 1, 

2020, for high-pressure two-component 

spray foam and as of January 1, 2021, for 

low-pressure two-component spray 

foam. However, for the military, there 

are several unique performance 

requirements related to weapon systems 

that require extensive testing and 

qualification prior to qualifying 

alternatives for HFC-containing foams. 

In addition, some of the lower-GWP 

alternatives may not be available by 

2020 or 2021in certain specialty 

applications with unique military 

requirements such as undersea; 

aerospace; and chemical, biological, and 

radiological warfare systems. In the case 

of space- and aeronautics- related 

applications, past experience indicates 

that transitions away from the foam 

blowing agents in current use took 

several years due to the challenging 

operational environment and the 

lengthy requalification process 

associated with human-rated space 

flight systems. 

Users of a restricted agent within the 

narrowed use limits category must make 

a reasonable effort to ascertain that other 

substitutes or alternatives are not 

technically feasible. Users are expected 

to undertake a thorough technical 

investigation of alternatives to the 

otherwise restricted substitute. 

Although users are not required to 

report the results of their investigations 

to EPA, users must document these 

results, and retain them in their files for 

the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. 

Users should include the following 

additional documentation to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

narrowed use applications. This 

information includes descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the 

substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other 

alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes 

will be available and projected time for 

switching. 

e. When would the status change? 

Except for the proposed narrow use 

limits addressed above, EPA is 

proposing to change the listings from 

acceptable to unacceptable (1) in highpressure two-component spray foam 

and in one-component foam sealants as 

of January 1, 2020, and (2) in lowpressure two-component spray foam as 

of January 1, 2021. The change of status 

would apply to the following blowing 

agents: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and 

blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc 

with at least four percent HFC-245fa, 

and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and 

the remainder HFC-365mfc and 

Formacel TI. The Agency is aware of 

several companies transitioning 

between now and 2017.190 However, a 

transition date of January 1, 2020, is 

necessary for high-pressure twocomponent spray foam to allow 

sufficient opportunity for affected 

entities to redesign to address the 

technical issues associated with using a 

different foam blowing agent, including 

the time required for reformulation 

(about one year), and the time required 

for testing and certification of the final 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22872 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

191Cooling Post, 2015. ‘‘Chemours to build HFO1336mzz plant.’’ November 17, 2015. This 

document is accessible online at: http://

www.coolingpost.com/world-news/chemours-tobuild-hfo-1336mzz-plant/. 

192Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0198, submitted by Dr. Thomas 

Fishback, Vice President, Research and 

Development, Fomo Products, Inc. October 16, 

2014. Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 

0139. 

193Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed 

SNAP Program Status Change Rule Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. October 20, 2014. 

Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0133. 

194 DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Submitted by Michael Parr and 

Mack McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198–0077. 

195Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed 

Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of 

Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 

(Docket no. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198). October 

20, 2014. Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198–0170. 

196Fomo, 2015. ‘‘The Use of Solstice® Gas 

Blowing Agent (GBA) in Low Pressure Spray 

Polyurethane Foam Applications;’’ Cline, Mojee 

and Bogdan, Mary; October, 2015. Polyurethane 

Industry Conference 2015. 

197Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton 

Corporation Meeting with EPA Stratospheric 

Protection Division, December 8, 2015. 

commercial product (one to one and a 

half years). Similarly, a transition date 

of January 1, 2021, is necessary for lowpressure two-component to address the 

technical issues associated with using a 

different foam blowing agent. Based on 

information from several companies 

developing low-pressure twocomponent spray foam products, the 

process of reformulation has been more 

difficult than for high-pressure twocomponent spray, because it must have 

a significantly longer shelf life and 

requires significant reformulation to 

achieve an acceptable shelf-life. These 

products are then sold to an end user 

many months after they are formulated. 

Thus, at least two years are expected to 

be needed for reformulation after 

issuance of a final rule and another one 

to one and a half years for testing for 

low-pressure two-component spray 

foam, resulting in a change of status 

date of January 1, 2021. 

For high-pressure two-component and 

low-pressure two-component spray 

foam a certain insulation value may be 

required to meet building code 

requirements. Some studies have 

indicated that CO2 may provide less 

insulation value to an insulation foam, 

pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent 

information on some of the newer 

fluorinated foam blowing agents with 

low GWPs, such as HFO-1234ze(E), 

HFO-1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates 

these foam blowing agents provide 

comparable or greater insulation value 

than their HCFC and HFC predecessors. 

Part of the process of testing and 

certification for spray foam used for 

building insulation includes verifying 

sufficient insulation value to meet 

building code requirements. 

January 1, 2020, is the earliest date by 

which there will be sufficient supply of 

alternatives for high-pressure twocomponent spray foam. Although 

alternatives are commercially available 

for this end-use (e.g., trans-1-chlorotrifluoroprop-1-ene, ecomateTM), there is 

already demand and concerns about 

sufficient supply from foam 

manufacturers in other end-uses (80 FR 

42870, 42925-42930; July 20, 2015). An 

additional blowing agent, HFO1336mzz(Z), is expected to become 

commercially available in 2017,191

providing greater supply of alternative 

foam blowing agent, as well as 

providing an additional nonflammable, 

low GWP option with good insulation 

properties that could be especially 

useful in high-pressure two-component 

spray foam. 

For one-component foam sealants, we 

expect that the transition process for 

manufacturers of these products should 

be quicker than for manufacturers of 

low-pressure two-component spray 

foam because testing is required only for 

a final formulation in an aerosol can for 

one-component foam sealants, rather 

than testing both the formulation in 

separate containers (A- and B-side) and 

ensuring the long-term stability of the 

final blown foam once the two parts are 

mixed to blow the foam. Also, no 

certification testing would be required 

for the one-component foam sealant, 

unlike for high-pressure two-component 

foam. In Europe, one-component foam 

sealants have already converted away 

from using HFCs and predominantly use 

HCs or HFO-1234ze(E), which are 

available substitutes for this end-use 

under SNAP. Allowing for one year for 

reformulation and one to two years for 

testing of products and to allow existing 

stock of one-component foams to be 

purchased and used, we are proposing 

a change of status date of January 1, 

2020, after which date, no more onecomponent foam sealants (cans) could 

be manufactured using the specified 

HFC blowing agents, but the end user 

could continue to use cans that had 

already been manufactured. In the July 

20, 2015, final rule, EPA took such an 

approach for aerosol propellants, which 

are used in similar packages for 

consumer use as well as for 

manufacturing use, and similarly, may 

be in distribution for a year or more 

before they are purchased and 

eventually used by the end user. Under 

the proposed approach, we would limit 

the applicability of the use prohibition 

on closed cell foam products (discussed 

in section VI.C.3), so that it would not 

apply to closed cell foam products 

produced through the use of a onecomponent spray foam manufactured 

prior to the status change date. 

For low-pressure two-component 

spray foam, commenters on the August 

6, 2014, proposal with a change of status 

date of January 1, 2017, expressed 

concern about the feasibility of 

alternatives by that date. Specifically, 

two manufacturers mentioned the 

heightened challenges of shelf-life and 

stability for a product using HFO1234ze(E), and suggested change of 

status dates of January 1, 2020 or 

2021.192 193 One manufacturer of 

alternative foam blowing agents 

suggested that HFC-134a and Formacel®

TI should remain listed as acceptable for 

use in low-pressure foam systems until 

multiple low-GWP alternatives with 

appropriate technical performance 

qualities would become commercially 

available,194 while another foam 

blowing agent manufacturer claimed 

that multiple options are available for 

this use but would require a couple of 

years to be optimized.195 Since that 

time, some of these same companies 

have provided additional information 

indicating that many of the technical 

challenges with use of HFO-1234ze(E) 

have been worked through and that this 

is expected to be a viable option given 

sufficient time to address the technical 

challenges of a transition.196 197 To 

allow sufficient time for manufacturers 

of low-pressure two-component spray 

foam kits to complete working through 

the technical challenges of alternatives, 

as well as time for existing kits to be 

distributed, purchased, and used by the 

end user, we are proposing, as our lead 

option, a change of status date of 

January 1, 2021. Alternatively, similar to 

an approach proposed above for onecomponent foam sealants, EPA 

proposing as an alternative option a 

change of status date of January 1, 2020, 

for low-pressure two-component spray 

foam kits, after which date no more kits 

could be manufactured using the 

specified HFC blowing agents, but the 

end user could continue to use kits that 

had already been manufactured. 

Although low-pressure two-part spray 

foam kits would typically be used by a 

professional (e.g., home improvement 

contractor) rather than by a consumer, 

there are similar issues with an 

extended chain manufacture, 

distribution, and use for these kits that 

are more similar to aerosol canisters and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22873 

198Sleasman, K. and Biggs, M., 2015. Lessons 

learned from the Federal Partners Workgroup on 

Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF), presented at the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry Technical 

Conference, October, 2015. 

one-component spray foam sealants 

than to high-pressure two-component 

spray foam or other foam blowing enduses (e.g., rigid PU appliance, rigid PU 

commercial refrigeration and sandwich 

panel). Under this alternative proposal, 

as under the proposed approach for onecomponent spray foams, we would limit 

the applicability of the use prohibition 

on closed cell foam products (discussed 

in section VI.C.3) so that it would not 

apply to closed cell foam products 

produced through the use of a lowpressure two-component spray foam kit 

manufactured prior to the status change 

date. 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

Over the past several years, to address 

potential exposure to workers and 

consumers, the Federal Partnership and 

each of its member agencies, including 

EPA, CPSC, OSHA, and NIOSH have 

worked to reduce exposure to various 

chemicals emitted from spray foam. For 

example, EPA and its federal partners 

have continued to work with industry to 

develop best practices for application of 

spray foam, and EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development has been 

developing methods to measure 

emissions of chemicals from spray foam 

as part of the ASTM Indoor Air 

Subcommittee D.22.05 on Spray 

Polyurethane Foam Insulation. The list 

of proposed and final standards 

represents the issues raised by the 

committee and the range of compounds 

of interest includes isocyanates, blowing 

agents, amine catalysts, flame 

retardants, and aldehydes.198 In 

addition to federal rules and guidance 

applying to the spray foam industry, 

insulation foam used in construction 

(e.g., high-pressure two-component 

spray foam) must meet insulation value 

requirements in state and local building 

codes, as discussed above in section 

VI.C.1.d. 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comments on all aspects 

of this proposed decision to change the 

listings of certain foam blowing agents 

in the three for spray foam end-uses. In 

particular, EPA requests comment on 

the proposed decision to change the 

status of the identified substitutes to 

unacceptable (1) in high-pressure twocomponent spray foam and in onecomponent foam sealants on January 1, 

2020, and (2) in low-pressure twocomponent spray foam on January 1, 

2021. EPA is interested in comment on 

whether there are specific applications 

for one-component spray foam sealants, 

low-pressure two-component, and highpressure two-component spray foam for 

which there are no alternatives available 

with lower overall risks to human 

health and the environment than the 

substitutes for which we are proposing 

a change of status: HFC-134a, HFC245fa, and blends thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at least four percent 

HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of 

HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent 

HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC365mfc; and Formacel TI, for reasons of 

fire safety or technical feasibility. EPA 

requests comment on whether the 

proposed change of status dates for onecomponent spray foam sealants, low 

pressure two-component, and high 

pressure two-component spray foam are 

appropriate in light of technical 

challenges and the supply of other 

alternatives. Where commenters 

indicate more time is needed due to 

supply or technical challenges, EPA is 

interested in information concerning 

what is limiting supply of substitutes 

and on the specific technical steps and 

time needed for each step in order to 

transition to alternatives. Additionally, 

EPA requests comment on whether the 

change of status date for one component 

foam sealants and low-pressure twocomponent spray foam should be based 

upon the date the product may no 

longer be used or whether it should be 

based upon a date of manufacture of the 

product with no restriction on the use 

of products sold prior to the change of 

status date. 

2. Proposed Revision To Change of 

Status Date of Certain HFCs and HFC 

Blends for Space- and AeronauticsRelated Foam Applications 

EPA is proposing to change the date 

upon which certain HFCs and HFC 

blend foam blowing agents for spaceand aeronautics-related applications 

change status from acceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits, to unacceptable. 

EPA is proposing to revise this change 

of status date to January 1, 2025. EPA 

is proposing to revise the change of 

status date only for space- and 

aeronautics-related applications and not 

for military uses. 

Table 19 summarizes the end-uses 

and blowing agents that in the July 20, 

2015, final rule were listed as 

unacceptable for military and spaceand aeronautics-related applications as 

of January 1, 2022 and for which we are 

proposing to revise the change of status 

date to January 1, 2025. 

TABLE 19—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHANGE OF STATUS DATES FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

End-use Substitutes Proposed 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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2019. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 19—PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHANGE OF STATUS DATES FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision * 

Flexible Polyurethane ............................. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2021. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

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 aeronauticsrelated applications * and unacceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 

2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable 

for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. 

* 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 are the affected end-uses? 

This proposal would apply 

specifically to space- and aeronauticsrelated applications in the same enduses that are regulated in appendix U to 

subpart G of 40 CFR part 82, as listed 

above in Table 19. This proposal to 

revise the changes of status date does 

not apply to the narrowed use limit for 

military uses for which the change of 

status date is January 1, 2022. 

b. Which foam blowing agents are 

affected? 

This proposal applies to the HFC and 

HFC blend foam blowing agents that are 

regulated in appendix U to subpart G of 

40 CFR part 82, as listed above in Table 

19. This proposal does not affect any 

HCFC foam blowing agents. 

c. When would the status change? 

We are proposing to revise the status 

change date for certain HFC and HFC 

blend foam blowing agents for space 

and aeronautics-related foam 

applications from acceptable, subject to 

narrowed use limits to unacceptable as 

of January 1, 2025—three years later 

than the current status change date of 

January 1, 2022. Based on recent 

discussions with other government 

agencies, EPA is aware that some space 

flight hardware used in the United 

States is being developed in the 

European Union. Under E.U. 

regulations, certain types of HFC foams 

may be blown and used after January 1, 

2022, but by the mid-2020s those 

regulations will no longer allow the use 

of the HFC blowing agents restricted 

under EPA’s SNAP regulations. Further, 

the most recent U.S. space flight 

program is still being developed, and it 

now appears that it may not be possible 

to qualify all foams needed with 

alternative foam blowing agents by the 

current January 1, 2022, date in order to 

ensure the safety of space vehicles. 

Thus, we are proposing to extend the 

period during which the narrowed use 

limits apply for space and aeronautics 

related applications from January 1, 

2022, to January 1, 2025. 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

EPA is not aware of any other relevant 

federal rules that would be affected by 

this proposed revision to the change in 

status date for certain HFC and HFC 

blend foam blowing agents for space 

and aeronautics-related foam 

applications. 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on the revised 

date of January 1, 2025, for the change 

of status for certain HFC and HFC blend 

foam blowing agents space and 

aeronautics-related foam applications 

from acceptable, subject to narrowed 

use limits, to unacceptable. 

3. Proposed Change of Status for 

Methylene Chloride in Flexible PU, 

Integral Skin PU, and Polyolefin Foams 

As provided in the following table, 

EPA is proposing to change the status 

methylene chloride from acceptable to 

unacceptable for multiple foam blowing 

end-uses. 

TABLE 20—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FLEXIBLE PU, INTEGRAL SKIN PU, AND POLYOLEFIN FOAM

BLOWING AGENTS

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Flexible PU .............................................. Methylene chloride ................................ Unacceptable as of 30 days after publication of a final rule. 

Integral Skin PU ...................................... Methylene chloride ................................ Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017. 

Polyolefin ................................................. Methylene chloride ................................ Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22875 

199EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 200 INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on 

Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Criteria 

164. Methylene chloride, second edition. World 

Health Organization, 1996. This document is 

accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/

documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm. 

201Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. 

Chipperfield, S.A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. 

Feng. Efficiency of short-lived halogens at 

influencing climate through depletion of 

stratospheric ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This 

document is accessible online at http://DOI: 

10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ‘‘New ozonedestroying gases on the rise; not controlled by 

treaty.’’ ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This 

document is accessible online at http://

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/

150216130241.htm. 

202Wang 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. 

203Patten 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. 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

EPA is proposing to change the status 

of methylene chloride from acceptable 

to unacceptable when used as a blowing 

agent in the production of flexible PU 

foam, integral skin PU foam, and 

polyolefin foam. Flexible PU includes 

foam in furniture, bedding, chair 

cushions, and shoe soles. Integral skin 

PU includes car steering wheels, 

dashboards, and shoe soles. Polyolefin 

includes foam sheets and tubes. 

Methylene chloride, also known as 

dichloromethane, has the chemical 

formula CH2Cl2 and the CAS Reg. No. 

75–09–2. EPA initially listed this 

substitute as acceptable for flexible PU 

foam and integral skin PU foam 

acceptable in the initial SNAP rule (79 

FR 13044; March 18, 1994), and then 

listed it as acceptable for polyolefin 

foam on August 26, 1994 (79 FR 44240). 

b. How does methylene chloride 

compare to other blowing agents for 

these end-uses with respect to SNAP 

criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks (e.g., 

flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 199 that 

provides the 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–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0663). 

i. Flexible PU 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

Methylene chloride contains chlorine 

and thus could have an ODP. We are 

unaware of a calculated ODP for 

methylene chloride in the peerreviewed literature, but it has 

historically been considered negligibly 

small.200 Recent research indicates that 

emissions of methylene chloride from 

multiple industrial sources have been 

increasing and could have a detectible 

impact on the ozone layer,201 despite 

the historical assumption of negligible 

ODP. For flexible polyurethane, 

available substitutes include acetone, 

Exxsol blowing agents, CO2, ecomateTM, 

HFC-152a, HFO-1336mzz(Z), methylal, 

saturated light HCs (C3-C6), trans-1- 

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

water. Of the other available alternatives 

for flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene contains 

chlorine and thus might have an ODP. 

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

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-use that are considered 

to be non-ozone-depleting.202 203

Methylene chloride has a GWP of 

approximately nine. As shown in Table 

21, other acceptable alternatives have 

GWPs that are comparable or lower than 

methylene chloride’s GWP of nine 

except for HFC-152a, which has a GWP 

of 124. 

TABLE 21—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE COMPARED TO OTHER FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN

FLEXIBLE PU FOAMS, INTEGRAL SKIN PU FOAMS, AND POLYOLEFIN FOAMS 1

Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Methylene Chloride ..................................................................... 9 unknown No ............ Proposed unacceptable. 

Flexible PU Foams 

Acetone; CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; Methylal; trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water.0–124 0–0.00034 No ............ No change. 

AB Technology; Exxsol Blowing Agents; HFO-1336mzz(Z); 

Methylal; Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6 1.

>1–9 0 Yes .......... No change. 

Integral Skin PU Foams 

Acetone; CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid; HFO-1234ze; HFO1336mzz(Z) HFC-152a; Methyl Formate; trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 1; Water.0–124 0–0.00034 No ............ No change. 

AB Technology; Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid; HFO1336mzz(Z); Methylal; Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6.>1–9 0 Yes .......... No change. 

Polyolefin Foams 

CO2; Ecomate; HFO-1234ze; HFC-152a; Water ........................ 0–124 0 No ............ No change. 

Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid; HFO-1234ze; HFC-152a/

Saturated Light Hydrocarbon Blends; Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6.

0–120 0 Yes .......... No change. 

1The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or additives combined with other acceptable 

blowing agents. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22876 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

204 INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on 

Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Criteria 

164. Methylene chloride, second edition. World 

Health Organization, 1996. This document is 

accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/

documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm. 

205Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. 

Chipperfield, S.A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. 

Feng. Efficiency of short-lived halogens at 

influencing climate through depletion of 

stratospheric ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This 

document is accessible online at http://DOI: 

10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ‘‘New ozonedestroying gases on the rise; not controlled by 

treaty.’’ ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This 

document is accessible online at http://

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/

150216130241.htm. 

206Wang 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. 

207Patten 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. 

Methylene chloride is excluded from 

the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. With 

the exception of HCs, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and methylal, 

the other alternatives contain 

compounds that are excluded from the 

definition of VOC. The manufacturer of 

HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to 

exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the 

definition of VOC under those 

regulations. As provided in our 

decisions listing these substitutes as 

acceptable, we determined that 

emissions of these alternatives in this 

end use would not pose a significantly 

greater risk than that posed by foam 

blowing agents that are not VOCs. 

(b) Flammability 

Methylene chloride exhibits no flash 

point under standard testing conditions 

and thus is considered nonflammable, 

although it does exhibit lower and 

upper flammability limits of 13 percent 

and 23 percent, respectively. Of the 

various alternatives, ecomateTM, Exxsol 

blowing agents, HFC-152a, HCs, and 

methylal are flammable, and the others 

are nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. 

(c) Toxicity 

Health effects of concern with 

methylene chloride include cancer, 

liver, and kidney effects (longer-term 

exposure) and neurotoxic effects (acute 

exposure), in addition to irritation to the 

skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Other 

alternatives for this end-use have 

potential health effects such as impacts 

on body weight, mononuclear 

infiltration of heart tissue, neurotoxic 

effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes, 

and respiratory tract; no other 

alternatives in this end-use have 

evidence of cancer as a health effect. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern in 

the workplace for methylene chloride or 

for the other available alternatives 

because they may be used for blowing 

flexible PU foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. Workplace exposure 

limits for the other available alternatives 

range from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 

Methylene chloride’s workplace 

exposure limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. 

(8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a 15- 

minute period. Methylene chloride is 

regulated for its toxicity as a hazardous 

air pollutant under the CAA and 

potentially as a U-listed hazardous 

waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). 

None of the other alternative blowing 

agents are regulated as hazardous air 

pollutants or as U-listed hazardous 

wastes. 

In the initial SNAP rulemaking, EPA 

listed methylene chloride as acceptable 

in this end-use, citing the presence of 

the OSHA regulations as sufficient to 

address workplace risk. Information 

regarding general population risk was 

not available for methylene chloride or 

for any of the other alternatives at the 

time EPA listed them as acceptable for 

this end use. 

Since EPA’s initial listing decision for 

methylene chloride in flexible PU foam, 

the Agency has separately issued a 

health-based residual risk standard 

under section 112 of the CAA for 

flexible PU foam production. (National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Residual Risk and 

Technology Review for Flexible 

Polyurethane Foam Production, (79 FR 

48073; August 15, 2014). In that 

regulation, EPA examined the risk to the 

general population and determined to 

prohibit the use of HAP-based blowing 

products, including methylene chloride, 

as auxiliary blowing agents in flexible 

PU slabstock foam production 

operations at major sources. Because 

EPA has separately determined in 

setting a risk-based standard that 

methylene chloride cannot be used as a 

blowing agent by major sources for 

production of flexible PU slabstock 

foam, we are proposing to change the 

status of methylene chloride in this enduse on the basis that it poses 

significantly more risk than other 

available alternatives. 

ii. Integral Skin PU 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

Methylene chloride contains chlorine 

and thus could have an ODP. We are 

unaware of a calculated ODP for 

methylene chloride in the peerreviewed literature, but it has 

historically been considered negligibly 

small.204 Recent research indicates that 

emissions of methylene chloride from 

multiple industrial sources have been 

increasing and could have a detectible 

impact on the ozone layer,205 despite 

the historical assumption of negligible 

ODP. For integral skin PU, available 

alternatives include acetone, CO2, 

ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, 

formic acid, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), 

HFO-1336mzz(Z), methylal, methyl 

formate, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), 

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

and water. Of the other available 

alternatives for flexible PU, only trans1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene 

contains chlorine and thus might have 

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

trifluoroprop-1-ene 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-use that are 

considered to be non-ozonedepleting.206 207

Methylene chloride has a GWP of 

approximately nine. As shown in Table 

21, other acceptable alternatives have 

GWPs that are comparable or lower than 

methylene chloride’s GWP of nine 

except for HFC-152a, which has a GWP 

of 124. 

Methylene chloride is excluded from 

the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. With 

the exception of HCs, Exxsol blowing 

agents, formic acid, HFO-1336mzz(Z), 

and methylal, the other alternatives 

contain compounds that are exempt 

from the definition of VOC. The 

manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has 

petitioned EPA to exempt HFO1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC 

under those regulations. As provided in 

our decisions listing these alternatives 

as acceptable, we determined that 

emissions of these alternatives in this 

end-use would not pose a significantly 

greater risk than that posed by foam 

blowing agents that are not VOCs. 

(b) Flammability 

Methylene chloride exhibits no flash 

point under standard testing conditions 

and thus is considered nonflammable, 

although it does exhibit lower and 

upper flammability limits of 13 percent 

and 23 percent, respectively. Of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22877 

208 INCHEM, 1996. 

209Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. 

Chipperfield, S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. 

Feng. Efficiency of short-lived halogens at 

influencing climate through depletion of 

stratospheric ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015; This 

document is accessible online at http://

DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ‘‘New 

ozone-destroying gases on the rise; not controlled 

by treaty.’’ ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This 

document is accessible online at http://

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/

150216130241.htm. 

210Wang 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. 

211Patten 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. 

various alternatives, acetone, methyl 

formate, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFC-152a, HCs, and methylal 

are flammable, and CO2, formic acid, 

HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), 

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

and water are nonflammable. The 

flammability hazards of the flammable 

compounds in this end-use can be 

adequately addressed in the process of 

meeting OSHA regulations and fire 

codes. 

(c) Toxicity 

Health effects of concern with 

methylene chloride include cancer, 

liver, and kidney effects (longer-term 

exposure) and neurotoxic effects (acute 

exposure), in addition to irritation to the 

skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Other 

alternatives for this end-use have 

potential health effects such as impacts 

on body weight, mononuclear 

infiltration of heart tissue, neurotoxic 

effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes, 

and respiratory tract; no other 

alternatives in this end-use have 

evidence of cancer as a health effect. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern in 

the workplace for methylene chloride or 

for the other available alternatives 

because they may be used for blowing 

integral skin PU consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. Workplace exposure 

limits for the other available alternatives 

range from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 

Methylene chloride’s workplace 

exposure limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. 

(8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a 15- 

minute period. Methylene chloride is 

regulated for its toxicity as a hazardous 

air pollutant under the CAA and 

potentially as a U-listed hazardous 

waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). 

None of the other alternative blowing 

agents are regulated as hazardous air 

pollutants or as U-listed hazardous 

wastes. 

Methylene chloride is the only 

acceptable alternative in this end-use 

that is a carcinogen. On this basis, we 

are proposing that methylene chloride 

poses significantly greater toxicity risks 

than the other alternatives available for 

this end use. The risk posed by 

methylene chloride and the other 

alternatives based on the other SNAP 

review criteria are not significantly 

different. Because of the significantly 

greater toxicity risk posed by methylene 

chloride, we believe it poses 

significantly greater overall risk than 

other available substitutes and we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable. 

iii. Polyolefin Foam 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

Methylene chloride contains chlorine 

and thus could have an ODP. We are 

unaware of a calculated ODP for 

methylene chloride in the peerreviewed literature, but it has 

historically been considered negligibly 

small.208 Recent research indicates that 

emissions of methylene chloride from 

multiple industrial sources have been 

increasing and could have a detectible 

impact on the ozone layer,209 despite 

the historical assumption of negligible 

ODP. In polyolefin foam, available 

alternatives include CO2, ecomateTM, 

Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, 

HFC-152a, blends of HFC-152a and 

saturated light HCs, HFO-1234ze(E), 

saturated light HCs (C3–C6), trans-1- 

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

water. Of the other available alternatives 

for flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene contains 

chlorine and thus might have an ODP. 

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

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-use that are considered 

to be non-ozone-depleting.210 211

Methylene chloride has a GWP of 

approximately nine. As shown in Table 

21, the other acceptable substitutes have 

GWPs that are comparable or lower than 

methylene chloride’s GWP of nine 

except for HFC-152a, which has a GWP 

of 124. 

Methylene chloride is excluded from 

the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. With 

the exception of HCs, HC blends, and 

Exxsol blowing agents, the other 

alternatives contain compounds that are 

exempted from the definition of VOC. 

The manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) 

has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC 

under those regulations. As provided in 

our decisions listing these alternatives 

as acceptable, we determined that 

emissions of these alternatives in this 

end-use would not pose a significantly 

greater risk than that posed by foam 

blowing agents that are not VOCs. 

(b) Flammability 

Methylene chloride exhibits no flash 

point under standard testing conditions 

and thus is considered nonflammable, 

although it does exhibit lower and 

upper flammability limits of 13 percent 

and 23 percent, respectively. Of the 

various alternatives, blends of HFC-152a 

and HCs, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing 

agents, HFC-152a, HCs, and methyl 

formate are flammable, and CO2, HFO1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 

trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water are 

nonflammable. The flammability 

hazards of the flammable compounds in 

this end-use can be adequately 

addressed in the process of meeting 

OSHA regulations and fire codes. 

(c) Toxicity 

Health effects of concern with 

methylene chloride include cancer, 

liver, and kidney effects (longer-term 

exposure) and neurotoxic effects (acute 

exposure), in addition to irritation to the 

skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Other 

alternatives for this end-use have 

potential health effects such as impacts 

on body weight, mononuclear 

infiltration of heart tissue, neurotoxic 

effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes, 

and respiratory tract; no other 

alternatives in this end-use have 

evidence of cancer as a health effect. 

Toxicity is not a significant concern in 

the workplace for methylene chloride or 

for the other available alternatives 

because they may be used for blowing 

polyolefin foam consistent with 

required or recommended workplace 

exposure limits. Workplace exposure 

limits for the other available alternatives 

range from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. 

Methylene chloride’s workplace 

exposure limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. 

(8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a 15- 

minute period. Methylene chloride is 

regulated for its toxicity as a hazardous 

air pollutant under the CAA and 

potentially as a U-listed hazardous 

waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). 

None of the other alternative blowing 

agents are regulated as hazardous air 

pollutants or as U-listed hazardous 

wastes. 

Methylene chloride is the only 

acceptable alternative in this end-use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22878 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

that is a carcinogen. On this basis, we 

are proposing that methylene chloride 

poses significantly greater toxicity risks 

than the other alternatives available for 

this end use. The risk posed by 

methylene chloride and the other 

alternatives based on the other SNAP 

review criteria are not significantly 

different. Because of the significantly 

greater toxicity risk posed by methylene 

chloride, we believe it poses 

significantly greater overall risk than 

other available substitutes and we are 

proposing to change the status to 

unacceptable. 

c. When would the status change? 

EPA proposes to change the status of 

methylene chloride in flexible PU foam 

as of 30 days after a final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Because this blowing agent has already 

been prohibited in flexible PU foam 

manufacturing operations for major 

sources by EPA’s National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) Residual Risk and 

Technology Review for Flexible 

Polyurethane Foam Production (79 FR 

48073; August 15, 2014), we expect that 

most businesses have already 

transitioned away from this substitute in 

that end-use. This proposed rule does 

not apply to area sources. 

For integral skin PU foam and 

polyolefin, we propose the respective 

change of status dates to be January 1, 

2017, and January 1, 2020. These dates 

are consistent with the change of status 

dates we previously established for 

certain HFCs in these end-uses (80 FR 

42870; July 20, 2015). These dates were 

established considering factors such as 

the supply of alternatives, time required 

for testing of alternatives, and time 

required to prepare facilities for use of 

flammable foam blowing agents. By 

proposing to change the status of 

methylene chloride from acceptable to 

unacceptable, we expect that end-users 

will consider blowing agents other than 

methylene chloride as they plan their 

transition away from HFCs in these enduses. 

d. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

In a recent rulemaking, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Residual Risk and 

Technology Review for Flexible 

Polyurethane Foam Production, EPA 

prohibits the use of HAP, including 

methylene chloride, as auxiliary 

blowing agents in slabstock flexible PU 

foam production operations at major 

sources as of November 13, 2014 (79 FR 

48073; August 15, 2014). This action is 

consistent with that previously issued 

prohibition. 

e. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on the proposed dates 

for a change of status for methylene 

chloride (30 days after publication of a 

final rule for flexible PU foam, January 

1, 2017, for integral skin PU foam, and 

January 1, 2020, for polyolefin foam). 

We request comments on, the extent to 

which methylene chloride is currently 

being used in these end-uses in integral 

skin PU, in polyolefin, or by area 

sources that manufacture flexible PU 

foam and the technical challenges that 

exist for transitioning from methylene 

chloride to other available alternatives. 

4. Proposed Application of Listings to 

Foam Products 

EPA is proposing to apply the 

unacceptability determinations in this 

action for foam blowing agents to closed 

cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foam. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to apply all listings for 

foam blowing agents codified in the 

appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G 

to such products. This would mean that 

closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams 

manufactured abroad and imported 

could not be used in the United States 

if the foam blowing agent was listed as 

unacceptable. 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

The foam sector includes both closed 

cell and open cell foams. Closed cell 

foams are specifically designed to retain 

the foam blowing agent in the cells; in 

insulation foam products, the foam 

blowing agent continues to perform a 

function in providing thermal 

insulation, once the foam has already 

been blown. With open cell foams, the 

foam blowing agent completes its 

function once the foam is blown; almost 

all of the foam blowing agent escapes 

from the open cells prior to import, and 

any vestigial amounts remaining do not 

perform a function. 

Foam blowing end-uses that contain 

closed-cell foams include rigid PU spray 

foam (all three applications described in 

section VI.C.1); rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid 

PU marine flotation foam; rigid PU 

appliance foam; rigid PU slabstock and 

other; rigid PU and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock; polystyrene: 

Extruded boardstock and billet; 

polystyrene: Extruded sheet; polyolefin; 

and phenolic insulation board and 

bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses 

containing open cell foams include 

flexible PU and integral skin PU. Open 

cell phenolic, and some other open cell 

foams also exist within the SNAP foam 

blowing end-uses that include closed 

cell foams. Integral skin foam may 

include a rigid surface with an interior 

flexible core. 

b. How would this proposal change the 

treatment of foam products under 

SNAP? 

Currently, an unacceptable foam 

blowing agent may not be used to 

manufacture products in the United 

States, whether for domestic use or for 

export. However, products made abroad 

with unacceptable foam blowing agents 

may be imported and used in the United 

States. This is because EPA has 

historically interpreted the use 

prohibitions for this sector to apply to 

blowing foam with the foam blowing 

agent and not to the use of products 

made with foam. For example, 

commercial refrigerators containing 

appliance foam blown with an 

unacceptable blowing agent may be 

imported into and used in the United 

States, though commercial refrigerators 

manufactured in the United States may 

not be manufactured with foam blown 

with that same agent. 

If this proposal were to be finalized as 

proposed, use of closed cell foam 

products (e.g., manufactured rigid PU 

insulation or XPS boardstock) or 

products that contain closed cell foam 

(e.g., household and commercial 

appliances, boats) manufactured with an 

unacceptable foam blowing agent on or 

after the specified date would be subject 

to the use prohibitions under SNAP. 

This would include, but would not be 

limited to, incorporating a closed cell 

foam blown with an unacceptable 

blowing agent into a subsequent product 

and installing a closed cell foam 

product or product containing closed 

cell foam. Products manufactured prior 

to the specified date would not be 

subject to the use prohibitions. In 

addition, under this proposal the use 

prohibitions would not apply to 

consumers once a product had been 

installed. 

c. How do other stratospheric ozone 

protection requirements apply to foam 

products? 

Several provisions of CAA Title VI 

and EPA’s implementing regulations are 

relevant to HCFC foam products. Under 

regulations implementing CAA section 

611, EPA requires labeling of products 

that contain an ODS and those that are 

manufactured with an ODS. EPA 

determined that open cell foams blown 

with an ODS must be labeled as a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22879 

212Section 610 does not address products 

containing or manufactured with substitutes. 

product manufactured with an ODS. (58 

FR 8136, 8143–8150, February 11, 1993; 

79 FR 64253, 64258–64259, October 28, 

2014) In contrast, closed cell foam 

products blown with an ODS must be 

labeled as a product containing an ODS 

for labeling purposes. (58 FR 8136, 

8150–8151, February 11, 1993; 79 FR 

64253, 64258–64259, October 28, 2014) 

As of January 1, 2015, any product 

containing a closed cell foam blown 

with an HCFC must be labeled as a 

product containing an ozone-depleting 

substance under the regulations at 40 

CFR 82.106 implementing CAA section 

611. 

Section 610 restricts sale and 

distribution and offers of sale and 

distribution of certain products 

containing or manufactured with CFCs 

and HCFCs.212 Section 610(d)(3)(A) 

explicitly provides an exception for 

foam insulation products containing 

HCFCs. EPA has implemented this 

restriction and the exception for HCFC 

foam insulation products through its 

Nonessential Products Ban regulations 

codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. 

These regulations define foam 

insulation product as a product 

containing or consisting of the following 

types of foam: 

• Closed cell rigid polyurethane 

foam; 

• Closed cell rigid polystyrene 

boardstock foam; 

• Closed cell rigid phenolic foam; and 

• Closed cell rigid polyethylene foam 

when such foam is suitable in shape, 

thickness and design to be used as a 

product that provides thermal 

insulation around pipes used in heating, 

plumbing, refrigeration, or industrial 

process systems. 

CAA section 605(a) prohibits the 

introduction into interstate commerce or 

use of any class II substance effective 

January 1, 2015, unless such substance: 

(1) Has been used, recovered, and 

recycled; (2) is used and entirely 

consumed (except for trace quantities) 

in the production of other chemicals; (3) 

is used as a refrigerant in appliances 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2020; 

or (4) is listed as acceptable for use as 

a fire suppression agent for 

nonresidential applications in 

accordance with section 612(c). 

The section 605(a) implementing 

regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart A restrict the use of virgin 

HCFCs to air conditioning, refrigeration, 

and fire suppression applications, with 

minor exceptions. Thus, while the 

Nonessential Products Ban does not 

apply to HCFC insulating foams, section 

605(a) and its implementing regulations 

prohibit the use of HCFCs for blowing 

foam in the United States. The 

combined effect of the Nonessential 

Products Ban and the section 605(a) 

implementing regulations is that HCFC 

foam insulation products may be 

imported, sold, and distributed in the 

United States but cannot be 

manufactured in the United States. 

In the preamble to a July 11, 2000, 

SNAP proposed rule, EPA reviewed its 

authority under CAA section 610 and 

noted that HCFC insulating foams were 

exempt from regulation under that 

section of the statute. EPA stated that 

‘‘Title VI of the Act thus does not 

provide EPA with the authority to 

prevent imports of products containing 

those foams’’ (65 FR 42653, 42656). EPA 

did not, however, base this statement on 

a full examination of the various 

authorities under Title VI. In taking 

final action on that proposal, EPA noted 

that while under section 610 it could 

not ban the sale of HCFC foam 

insulation products, section 610 ‘‘does 

not address EPA’s ability to regulate the 

transition from use of ODS to 

alternatives in the manufacturing of 

products such as foam.’’ EPA further 

noted: ‘‘Section 612 can restrict the use 

of a substitute in a product regardless of 

whether or not that product is 

considered nonessential under Section 

610’’ (69 FR 58275, September 30, 

2004). 

d. How is EPA reexamining treatment of 

foam products under SNAP? 

In the August 6, 2014, NPRM (79 FR 

46126; 46154), EPA proposed to 

consider use of a foam blowing agent to 

include use of closed cell foam products 

or products containing closed cell foam. 

In response to that proposal, some 

commenters supported applying the 

unacceptability determinations to the 

use of closed cell foam products or 

products containing closed cell foam 

with unacceptable foam blowing agents, 

on the basis that it would maintain a 

‘‘level playing field’’ for domestically 

manufactured products made with 

lower-GWP foam blowing agents that 

were going to compete with imported 

products. Some commenters also 

supported extending such a prohibition 

to open cell foams, stating that there 

was still some foam blowing agent left 

in the foam and citing the negative 

impacts of allowing cheaper imported 

products containing unacceptable foam 

blowing agents. 

Other commenters opposed applying 

unacceptability determinations to 

anything other than the act of blowing 

foam in the United States. These 

commenters stated that this would be a 

significant departure from the Agency’s 

previous interpretation and suggested 

that EPA needed to explain the basis for 

such a change. For example, one 

commenter stated that ‘‘without any 

legal rationale, EPA has proposed to 

reverse its long-standing interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act with respect to the 

import of products containing HCFC141b as a foam-blowing agent.’’ 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 did not take final action in the July 

20, 2015, final rule (80 FR 42870) but 

instead elected to continue assessing the 

merits of the change. 

In this action, EPA is again proposing 

to apply listings and prohibitions for 

foam blowing agents to use of closed 

cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foam. To the 

extent EPA’s earlier statements 

regarding Title VI reflect an 

interpretation that the agency could not 

address imported closed cell foam 

products or products containing closed 

cell foam under any provision of Title 

VI, EPA is proposing to change that 

interpretation. 

Section 612 requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations prohibiting the 

replacement of ODS with certain 

substitutes and to publish lists of the 

substitutes prohibited for specific uses 

as well as those found acceptable for 

those uses. EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 82.174 state, in 

part: ‘‘No person may use a substitute 

after the effective date of any 

rulemaking adding such substitute to 

the list of unacceptable substitutes’’ (40 

CFR 82.174(d)). The SNAP regulations 

define ‘‘use’’ of a substitute as 

including, but not being 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.’’ 

(§ 82.172) 

EPA currently treats use of foam 

blowing agents in the manufacture of a 

foam product as covered by the use 

prohibition. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to apply the use prohibition 

more broadly in the case of closed cell 

foam products. With respect to other 

sectors, EPA has treated use of a product 

manufactured with or containing a 

substance as constituting use of the 

substance where the product holds 

some amount of the substance, the 

substance continues to perform its 

intended function, and the substance is 

likely to be emitted in the United States 

either during use of the product or at the 

time of its disposal. For example, an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

213There will also be a change of status on 

January 1, 2017 for flexible PU and integral skin PU, 

but these are open cell foams and are not part of 

this proposal for closed cell foams. 

214Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to 

Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, 

2002. 

aerosol can is manufactured to contain 

a substance as a propellant, and then 

that propellant leaks, is released by the 

end user during use of the aerosol can’s 

contents, or is emitted at the time of 

disposal if it has not already been used 

up. In the July 20, 2015 SNAP rule, in 

changing the status of certain substances 

with respect to aerosols, EPA prohibited 

use of aerosol products containing those 

substances, while stating that products 

manufactured prior to the change of 

status date could still be used after that 

date (80 FR 42883). By analogy, we are 

proposing that ‘‘use’’ of a foam blowing 

agent includes use of a closed cell foam 

product manufactured after the 

specified date. For such products, the 

foam blowing agent remains in the cells 

and continues to be used for the 

purpose of insulation during the 

lifetime of the product. Furthermore, 

emissions of the foam blowing agent 

occur at the time of disposal of the 

closed cell foam product. Thus, 

emissions from a closed cell product 

used in the United States can be 

expected to occur in the United States 

regardless of whether the product was 

manufactured domestically or abroad. 

This proposed action would ensure that 

products manufactured abroad and 

subsequently imported would be treated 

the same as products manufactured 

domestically. 

EPA does not propose to treat use of 

an open cell foam product as 

constituting use of the foam blowing 

agent. The foam blowing agent in an 

open cell foam product does not 

continue to perform its intended 

function during the lifetime of the 

product. Except for insignificant 

amounts remaining in the cells, 

emissions of the foam blowing agent 

would occur at the time and place of 

manufacture. Therefore, we are 

proposing to differentiate between 

closed cell and open cell foam products 

for this purpose. This would be 

consistent with the different treatment 

of closed and open cell foam products 

under the section 611 labeling 

regulations. 

e. When would use of closed cell foam 

products with unacceptable blowing 

agents be unacceptable? 

For changes of status proposed in this 

rulemaking (section VI.C.1 and VI.C.2), 

we are proposing that the 

unacceptability determination would 

apply to use of closed cell foam 

products and products that contain 

closed cell foam where the products are 

manufactured on or after the change of 

status date. As noted in the July 15, 

2015 SNAP rule with respect to MVAC 

and stand-alone refrigeration equipment 

(80 FR 42884), it is reasonable to allow 

use of products manufactured before the 

change of status date to avoid market 

disruption, creation of stranded 

inventory, and perverse incentives for 

releasing these substances to the 

environment. 

For alternatives that have already 

been listed as unacceptable with a 

change of status date of January 1, 

2017,213 or earlier—namely, HCFC 

blowing agents listed as unacceptable in 

appendices K, M, Q, and U to 40 CFR 

part 82 subpart G, and HFC blowing 

agents listed as unacceptable for rigid 

PU and PIR boardstock, extruded 

polystyrene sheet, and phenolic foams 

in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart 

G—we are proposing that the 

unacceptability determination would 

apply to use of closed cell foam 

products and products that contain 

closed cell foam manufactured on or 

after the date one year after the date of 

publication of a final rule. This timing 

is intended to allow importers and 

international manufacturers of such 

products time to adjust their 

manufacture and import plans. For 

substitutes that have already been listed 

as unacceptable with a change of status 

date after January 1, 2017—namely, HFC 

blowing agents listed as unacceptable in 

rigid PU slabstock and other; rigid PU 

appliance foam; rigid PU commercial 

refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid 

PU marine flotation foam; polyolefin; 

and polystyrene extruded boardstock 

and billet- we are proposing that the 

unacceptability determination would 

apply to use of closed cell foam 

products and products that contain 

closed cell foam manufactured on or 

after the change of status date for each 

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

2021). For the substitutes already listed 

as unacceptable, we are proposing to 

add language regarding use of products 

to the relevant tables. We do not intend 

to re-open the listing of those substitutes 

as unacceptable or the change of status 

dates for those substitutes. 

f. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comment on all aspects 

of this proposal. In particular, we 

request comment on our proposal to 

revise our previous interpretation and to 

consider use of the foam blowing agent 

to include use of closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foam. We are also taking 

comment on whether use of an open cell 

foam product should constitute use of 

the foam blowing agent. Finally, we 

request comment on the amount of time 

provided after which closed cell foam 

products and products containing 

closed cell foams manufactured on or 

after the specified dates would be 

subject to the use prohibitions. 

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection 

1. Proposed Listing of 2-bromo-3,3,3- 

trifluoropropene (2-BTP) as Acceptable, 

Subject to Use Conditions, for Total 

Flooding and Streaming 

EPA is proposing to list 2-bromo3,3,3-trifluoropropene (hereinafter 

referred to as 2-BTP) as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, for use in 

engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in 

total flooding fire suppression systems. 

In addition, EPA proposes to list 2-BTP 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

for use in aircraft as a streaming agent. 

EPA is reviewing additional potential 

fire suppression applications for 2-BTP 

but is not taking action on those other 

uses in this proposed rule. 

a. What are the affected end-uses? 

The fire suppression and explosion 

protection end-uses addressed in this 

action are total flooding and streaming. 

Total flooding systems, which 

historically employed halon 1301 as a 

fire suppression agent, are used in both 

normally occupied and unoccupied 

areas. In the United States, 

approximately 90 percent of installed 

total flooding systems protect 

anticipated hazards from ordinary 

combustibles (i.e., Class A fires), while 

the remaining ten percent protect 

against applications involving 

flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class 

B fires).214 It is also estimated that 

approximately 75 percent of total 

flooding systems protect electronics 

(e.g., computers, telecommunications, 

process control areas) while the 

remaining 25 percent protect other 

applications, primarily in civil aviation 

(e.g., engine nacelles/APUs, cargo 

compartments, lavatory trash 

receptacles), military weapons systems 

(e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces 

on ships, aircraft engines and tanks), 

oil/gas and manufacturing industries 

(e.g., gas/oil pumping, compressor 

stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery 

space, cargo pump rooms). Streaming 

applications, which have historically 

used halon 1211 as an extinguishing 

agent, include portable fire 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22881 

215EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

216 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 2015. 217Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ‘‘OH reaction 

rate constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone 

depletion potentials and global warming potentials 

of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,’’ J. Geophys. 

Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051. 

218 ICF, 2016j. Analysis of annual VOC emissions 

from the use of 2-BTP. 

219Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions 

for the United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x106

MT) as reported in the National Emissions 

Inventory (EPA, 2015). 

extinguishers designed to protect 

against specific hazards. 

b. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire 

suppressants for these end-uses with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 215 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

i. Total Flooding 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

In addition to halon 1301, the current 

market for total flooding systems also 

includes HCFCs, HFCs, inert gases, and 

a variety of NIK extinguishing agents 

(e.g., powdered aerosols, foams, 

water).216 2-BTP has a GWP of 0.23–0.26 

and a lower climate impact compared to 

other alternatives (e.g., HFC-227ea) used 

as total flooding and streaming agents. 

As shown in Table 22, the GWPs of 

other total flooding alternatives range 

from <1 to 3,500. 

TABLE 22—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF 2-BTP COMPARED TO OTHER TOTAL FLOODING AND STREAMING AGENTS

Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

2-BTP .......................................................................................... 1 0.23–0.26 0.0028 Yes .......... Acceptable, subject to use conditions. 

Total flooding 

FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) ........................................ <1 0 Yes .......... No change. 

CF3I ............................................................................................. 0.4 0.008 Yes .......... No change.

CO2 ............................................................................................. 1 0 No ............ No change. 

HCFC Blend A2 .......................................................................... 1,546 0.048 No ............ No change. 

HFC-227ea .................................................................................. 3,220 0 No ............ No change. 

HFC-125 ...................................................................................... 3,500 0 No ............ No change. 

Water, Inert gases, Powdered aerosols A–E ............................. 0 0 No ............ No change. 

Streaming 

HCFC Blend B3 .......................................................................... 77 0.00098 No ............ No change. 

HFC-227ea .................................................................................. 3,220 0 No ............ No change. 

HFC-236fa ................................................................................... 9,810 0 No ............ No change. 

FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) ........................................ <1 0 Yes .......... No change. 

CF3I ............................................................................................. 0.4 0.008 Yes .......... No change.

CO2 ............................................................................................. 1 0 No ............ No change. 

Water ........................................................................................... 0 0 No ............ No change. 

H Galden HFPEs ........................................................................ 2,790–6,230 0 No ............ No change. 

1 GWP range represents GWPs for 30°N to 60°N and 60°S to 60°N emissions scenarios for a 100-year time horizon. A tropospherically wellmixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.217

2 HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75%), HCFC-22 (82%), HCFC-124 (9.5%), and D-limonene (3.75%). 3 HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123. 

In addition to global impacts on the 

atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential 

impacts of emissions of 2-BTP on local 

air quality. 2-BTP is a VOC and is not 

excluded from that definition under 

CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA 

compared the annual VOC emissions 

from the use of 2-BTP as a total flooding 

agent to other anthropogenic sources of 

VOC emissions considering both worst 

case and more realistic scenarios. Under 

either scenario, emissions are a small 

fraction of a percentage (5.6 x 10 5

percent to 2.1 x 10 3 percent) of all 

anthropogenic VOC emissions in the 

United States in 2014.218 219 Given this 

emission level, we determined it was 

not necessary to perform an assessment 

of the effect of these emissions on 

ambient ozone levels; any effect would 

be insignificant. This is particularly true 

since most releases of 2-BTP are 

expected to be at altitude, not in the 

lower troposphere. Other acceptable fire 

suppression agents currently in use in 

this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6- 

perfluoroketone), and thus, use of 2-BTP 

would not pose more risk than use of 

other alternatives. 

(b) Flammability 

2-BTP is nonflammable, as are all 

other available total flooding agents. 

(c) Toxicity 

When identifying potential 

alternatives, toxicity is an important 

characteristic to consider for 

manufacturing personnel, service 

technicians, and end users. Typical 

concerns include residual oxygen 

concentration in the protected space 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

220 ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion 

Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes as a 

Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications. 

Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). 

221 ICF, 2016l. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion 

Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. 

Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). 

after discharge and cardiac effects as a 

consequence of absorption of the agent 

into the bloodstream. 

EPA has evaluated the risks 

associated with potential exposures to 

2-BTP during production operations and 

the filling of fire extinguishers as well 

as in the case of an inadvertent 

discharge of the system during 

maintenance activities on the fire 

extinguishing system. EPA’s review of 

the human health impacts of 2-BTP, 

including the summary of available 

toxicity studies, and EPA’s review of the 

human health impacts of 2-BTP is in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0663).220 221

According to the MSDS, exposure to 

2-BTP through ocular or dermal 

absorption, inhalation, or ingestion is 

unlikely to be harmful. However, the 

most likely pathway of exposure is 

through inhalation, which may cause 

central nervous system effects, such as 

dizziness, confusion, physical 

incoordination, drowsiness, anesthesia, 

or unconsciousness. EPA uses the 

NOAEL value as the basis to ensure 

protection to the worker population. 

The cardiotoxic Lowest-ObservedAdverse-Effect-Level (LOAEL) for this 

agent is 1.0 percent (10,000 ppm), at 

which level exposure may cause 

increased sensitivity of the heart to 

adrenaline, which might cause irregular 

heartbeats and possibly ventricular 

fibrillation or death; the cardiotoxic 

NOAEL for this agent is 0.5 percent 

(5,000 ppm). 

2-BTP vapors are heavier than air and 

may reduce oxygen available for 

breathing, causing asphyxiation in high 

concentrations. Such vapors pose a 

potential hazard if large volumes are 

trapped in enclosed or low places. In 

addition, as noted above, if person(s) are 

exposed to high concentrations, the 

person(s) may experience central 

nervous system effects, such as 

drowsiness and dizziness, which may 

result in the person(s) not realizing that 

he/she is suffocating. These health 

effects after exposure are similar for 

other common fire suppressants. 

Employees responsible for 

manufacturing the systems should wear 

the appropriate PPE, such as protective 

gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective 

work clothing, and suitable respiratory 

protection in case of accidental release 

or insufficient ventilation. Use of 

respirators is recommended during 

activities in which exposure to the 

proposed substitute cannot be 

controlled through other means. When 

handling a leak in a storage container, 

protective clothing is recommended as 

well as vapor-in air detection systems. 

Gloves (i.e., neoprene, polyvinyl 

chloride, or polyvinyl alcohol) should 

be worn when handling equipment 

containing the proposed substitute for 

prolonged periods. 

For operations requiring regular 

handling of 2-BTP, engineering controls 

should include adequate ventilation 

systems and enclosed or confined 

operations to ensure exposure levels to 

the proposed substitute are below the 

occupational AEL. 2-BTP is not 

expected to pose a risk to workers when 

the engineering controls and PPE 

recommendations referenced in the 

MSDS for this proposed substitute are 

followed. 

Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during 

installation or servicing of 2-BTP total 

flooding systems for engines and APUs 

on aircraft. These are both considered to 

be unoccupiable areas, meaning 

personnel cannot physically occupy 

these spaces, thus reducing the risk 

from exposure to an inadvertent 

discharge. The risk of accidental 

activation of the fire extinguishing 

system while personnel are present near 

the protected space is highly unlikely if 

proper procedures, including those of 

the 2-BTP system manufacturer as well 

as the aircraft manufacturer, are 

followed. Instructions on system 

installation and servicing included in 

manuals for the 2-BTP systems should 

be adhered to. In the case of an 

inadvertent discharge of the system 

during maintenance activities on the fire 

extinguishing system or surrounding 

equipment, the cowl doors that would 

be open to allow access to the area will 

allow personnel to immediately egress 

and avoid exposure. Protective gloves 

and tightly sealed goggles should be 

worn for installation and servicing 

activities, to protect workers in any 

event of potential discharge of the 

proposed substitute, accidental or 

otherwise. Filling or servicing 

operations should be performed in wellventilated areas. 

2-BTP is not expected to cause a 

significant risk to human health in the 

general population when used as a total 

flooding fire extinguishing agent. 

Disposal of 2-BTP total flooding systems 

is subject to local, state, and federal 

regulations, which ensure that 2-BTP 

and water contaminated with 2-BTP are 

not be dumped into sewers, on the 

ground, or into any body of water, but 

rather taken to a wastewater treatment 

facility or disposed of properly. 2-BTP 

is not considered to be hazardous waste 

under EPA regulations implementing 

RCRA. 

EPA’s evaluation indicates that the 

use of 2-BTP is not expected to pose a 

significant toxicity risk to personnel or 

the general population. 2-BTP is not 

expected to cause a significant risk to 

human health in the general population 

when used as a total flooding fire 

extinguishing agent in systems designed 

specifically for engines and APUs on 

aircraft. Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely 

for technicians during installation or 

servicing of 2-BTP total flooding 

systems for engines and APUs. As 

indicated by the submitter, the risk of 

accidental activation of the fire 

extinguishing system while personnel 

are present near the protected space is 

highly unlikely if proper procedures are 

followed. Proper instructions on system 

installation and servicing included in 

manuals for the 2-BTP systems should 

be adhered to. The locations of the 2- 

BTP bottles in the engine and APU 

compartments will vary by airplane 

model. The engine bottles could be 

installed inside or outside the 

pressurized volume, but they are 

connected through piping to the 

engines. APU bottles are typically 

installed forward of the APU firewall, 

outside of the pressurized volume of the 

plane. The bottles are hermetically 

sealed and the piping system is pressure 

tested, mitigating the potential for any 

leak of 2-BTP from the system. 

According to the submitter, in the case 

of an inadvertent discharge of the 

system during maintenance activities on 

the fire extinguishing system or 

surrounding equipment, the cowl doors 

that would be open to allow access to 

the area will allow service personnel to 

immediately egress and avoid exposure. 

Furthermore, aircraft maintenance 

procedures provide specific instruction 

to prevent accidental discharge of 2-BTP 

systems. It is expected that procedures 

identified in the MSDS for 2-BTP and 

good manufacturing practices will be 

adhered to, and that the appropriate 

safety and PPE (e.g., protective gloves, 

tightly sealed goggles, protective work 

clothing, and suitable respiratory 

protection in case of accidental release 

or insufficient ventilation) consistent 

with OSHA guidelines will be used, as 

applicable, during manufacture and 

disposal of 2-BTP total flooding 

systems. 

The toxicity risks can be minimized 

through the use conditions specified in 

section VI.D.c below. The risks after 

exposure are common to many total 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22883 

222 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 2015. 

223 ICF, 2016j. Analysis of annual VOC emissions 

from the use of 2-BTP. 

224UL, 2005. Standard 2129—Halocarbon Clean 

Agent Fire Extinguishers. This document is 

accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/

?id=2129_2. 

flooding agents, including those already 

listed as acceptable under SNAP for this 

same end-use such as C6- 

perfluoroketone. EPA is proposing to 

find 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as a total flooding agent for 

use in engine nacelles and APUs on 

aircraft because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by the substitute is lower than or 

comparable to the overall risk posed by 

other alternatives listed as acceptable in 

the same end-use. 

ii. Streaming Uses 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

In addition to halon 1211, the current 

market for streaming applications also 

includes HCFCs, HFCs, and a variety of 

other agents (e.g., dry chemical, CO2, 

water).222 Specific alternatives used for 

streaming uses include HCFC Blend B 

(with an ODP of roughly 0.01 and a 

GWP of roughly 80), HFC-227ea (with 

an ODP of zero and a GWP of 3,220), 

and C7 Fluoroketone (with an ODP of 

zero and a GWP of approximately one). 

The ODP, GWP, and atmospheric 

lifetime of 2-BTP and other alternatives 

that are also used as total flooding 

agents are described above under total 

flooding applications. 2-BTP has a lower 

climate impact a shorter atmospheric 

lifetime compared to other alternatives 

in this end-use. 

Regarding local air quality impacts, 

EPA compared the annual VOC 

emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a 

streaming agent to other anthropogenic 

sources of VOC emissions considering 

both worst case and more realistic 

scenarios. Under either scenario, 

emissions are a small fraction of a 

percentage (7.4 × 10¥5 percent to 2.1 × 

10¥3 percent) of all anthropogenic VOC 

emissions in the United States in 

2014.223 Given this emission level, we 

determined it was not necessary to 

perform an assessment of the effect of 

these emissions on ambient ozone 

levels; any effect would be insignificant. 

This is particularly true since most 

releases of 2-BTP are expected to be at 

altitude, not in the lower troposphere. 

Other acceptable fire suppression agents 

currently in use in this end-use are also 

VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone, C7- 

fluoroketone), and thus, use of 2-BTP 

would not pose more risk than use of 

other alternatives. 

(b) Flammability 

2-BTP is nonflammable, as are all 

other available streaming agents. 

(c) Toxicity 

EPA evaluated occupational and 

general population exposure at 

manufacture and at end-use to ensure 

that the use of 2-BTP as a streaming 

agent will not pose unacceptable risks to 

workers or the general public. EPA has 

evaluated the risks associated with 

potential exposures to 2-BTP during 

production operations and the filling of 

fire extinguishers as well as in the case 

of an inadvertent discharge of the fire 

extinguisher during maintenance 

activities. 

2-BTP is not expected to pose a risk 

to workers during manufacture when 

the engineering controls and PPE 

requirements as also referenced in the 

MSDS for this proposed substitute are 

followed as described below in section 

VI.D.1.c.i. The combination of 

appropriate engineering controls and 

the use of PPE will ensure exposure 

levels to the proposed substitute are 

below the occupational AEL. Exposure 

to 2-BTP is not likely during installation 

or servicing of 2-BTP fire extinguishers. 

As indicated by the submitter, the risk 

of accidental activation of the fire 

extinguisher while personnel are 

present in the protected space is highly 

unlikely if proper procedures are 

followed. Proper instructions on system 

installation and servicing included in 

manuals for the 2-BTP systems should 

be adhered to. 

EPA also assessed potential end-use 

exposure scenario, 15-minute and 30- 

minute TWA exposures for 2-BTP 

following potential release of agent from 

the handheld extinguisher on-board 

aircraft. These exposures were then 

compared to the cardiotoxic LOAEL for 

2-BTP. The modeled 15-minute and 30- 

minute exposures for varying 

ventilation rates were significantly 

lower than the LOAEL of 10,000 ppm 

for 2-BTP, as well as below the NOAEL 

of 5,000 ppm. 2-BTP handheld 

extinguishers must follow required 

minimum room volumes established by 

UL 2129, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire 

Extinguishers,224 when discharged into 

a confined space. This standard 

prohibits the exceedance of the 

cardiotoxic LOAEL for any fire 

suppressant (i.e., 10,000 ppm or 1.0% 

for 2-BTP). Therefore, per UL 2129, 

labels for 2-BTP extinguishers will 

contain the statement, ‘‘Do not use in 

confined spaces less than 896 cubic feet 

per extinguisher.’’ Based on the above 

results, 2-BTP is not expected to pose 

significant risk to end users when used 

as a streaming fire extinguishing agent 

in aircraft. 

There are various precautions 

described above, but the actual use 

conditions are described below. The 

general population risks during release 

or disposal of the agent are described in 

section VI.D.1.b above. The risks after 

exposure are common to many 

streaming agents, including those 

already listed as acceptable under SNAP 

for this same end-use, such as C6- 

perfluoroketone. EPA is proposing to 

find 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as a streaming agent on 

aircraft because the overall 

environmental and human health risk 

posed by the substitute is lower than or 

comparable to the overall risk posed by 

other alternatives listed as acceptable in 

the same end-use. 

c. What are the proposed use 

conditions? 

i. Engine Nacelles and APU Fire 

Suppression Systems on Aircraft Only 

EPA is proposing to add 2-BTP to the 

list of acceptable total flooding 

substitutes, subject to use conditions. 

For the total flooding end-use, the 

proposed use conditions would require 

that 2-BTP be used only for engine 

nacelles and APU on aircraft. 

ii. Handheld Extinguishers in Aircraft 

Only 

For the streaming end-use, the use 

condition would require that 2-BTP be 

used only for handheld extinguishers in 

aircraft. 

d. What further information is EPA 

providing in the acceptable subject to 

use conditions listing for 2-BTP? 

In the ‘‘Further Information’’ column 

of the regulatory listing, EPA is 

providing the following additional 

information for establishments 

manufacturing, installing and 

maintaining total flooding systems using 

this agent: 

• This agent should be used in 

accordance with the safety guidelines in 

the latest edition of the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 

Standard for Clean Agent Fire 

Extinguishing Systems; 

• In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, 

person(s) should be immediately 

removed and exposed to fresh air; if 

breathing is difficult, person(s) should 

seek medical attention; 

• In case of ocular exposure, 

person(s) should immediately flush the 

eyes, including under the eyelids, with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

225UL, 2004. Standard 711—Rating and Testing 

of Fire Extinguishers. This document is accessible 

at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=711_7. 

226FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for HandHeld Extinguishers. This document is accessible at: 

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf. 

227UL, 2005. Standard 2129—Halocarbon Clean 

Agent Fire Extinguishers. This document is 

accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/

?id=2129_2. 

fresh water and move to a noncontaminated area, and medical 

attention should be sought if irritation 

develops or persists; 

• Eye wash and quick drench 

facilities should be available. In case of 

ocular exposure, person(s) should 

immediately flush the eyes, including 

under the eyelids, with fresh water and 

move to a non-contaminated area; 

Exposed persons should remove all 

contaminated clothing and footwear to 

avoid irritation; and medical attention 

should be sought if irritation develops 

or persists; 

• Although unlikely, in case of 

ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should 

consult a physician immediately; 

• Manufacturing space should be 

equipped with specialized engineering 

controls and well ventilated with a local 

exhaust system and low-lying source 

ventilation to effectively mitigate 

potential occupational exposure; regular 

testing and monitoring of the workplace 

atmosphere should be conducted; 

• Employees responsible for chemical 

processing should wear the appropriate 

PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly 

sealed goggles, protective work clothing, 

and suitable respiratory protection in 

case of accidental release or insufficient 

ventilation; 

• All spills should be cleaned up 

immediately in accordance with good 

industrial hygiene practices; and 

• Training for safe handling 

procedures should be provided to all 

employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or 

extinguishing units filled with the 

agent. 

• Safety features that are typical of 

total flooding systems such as predischarge alarms, time delays, and 

system abort switches should be 

provided, as directed by applicable 

OSHA regulations and NFPA standards. 

Use of this agent should also conform to 

relevant OSHA requirements, including 

29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 

1910.160 and 1910.162. 

In the ‘‘Further Information’’ column 

of the regulatory listing, EPA is 

providing the following additional 

information for establishments 

manufacturing, installing and 

maintaining streaming agents: 

• This agent should be used in 

accordance with the latest edition of 

NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire 

Extinguishers; 

• In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, 

person(s) should be immediately 

removed and exposed to fresh air; if 

breathing is difficult, person(s) should 

seek medical attention; 

• Eye wash and quick drench 

facilities should be available. In case of 

ocular exposure, person(s) should 

immediately flush the eyes, including 

under the eyelids, with fresh water and 

move to a non-contaminated area. 

Exposed person(s) should remove all 

contaminated clothing and footwear to 

avoid irritation, and medical attention 

should be sought if irritation develops 

or persists; 

• Although unlikely, in case of 

ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should 

consult a physician immediately; 

• Manufacturing space should be 

equipped with specialized engineering 

controls and well ventilated with a local 

exhaust system and low-lying source 

ventilation to effectively mitigate 

potential occupational exposure; regular 

testing and monitoring of the workplace 

atmosphere should be conducted; 

• Employees responsible for chemical 

processing should wear the appropriate 

PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly 

sealed goggles, protective work clothing, 

and suitable respiratory protection in 

case of accidental release or insufficient 

ventilation; 

• All spills should be cleaned up 

immediately in accordance with good 

industrial hygiene practices; 

• Training for safe handling 

procedures should be provided to all 

employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or 

extinguishing units filled with the 

agent; 

• 2-BTP use as a streaming fire 

extinguishing agent in handheld 

extinguishers on aircraft should be in 

accordance with UL 711, Rating and 

Testing of Fire Extinguishers 225 and the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Minimum Performance Standard for 

Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/

AR–01/37),226 with regard to the size 

and number of extinguishers depending 

on the size of aircraft. 2-BTP handheld 

extinguishers should also follow 

required minimum room volumes 

established by UL 2129, Halocarbon 

Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, when 

discharged into a confined space.227

This standard prohibits the exceedance 

of the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any fire 

suppressant (i.e., 10,000 ppm or 1.0 

percent for 2-BTP). 

e. When would the listing apply? 

EPA proposes that this listing would 

apply 30 days after the date of 

publication of a final rule. This date, the 

same as the proposed effective date of 

this regulation, allows for the safe use 

of this substitute at the earliest 

opportunity. 

f. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

As required for a new chemical, the 

manufacturer of this agent submitted a 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for 

review by EPA. The PMN, designated as 

P–14–260, has completed EPA review 

and the manufacturer is presently 

subject to requirements contained in a 

TSCA section 5(e) Consent Order. Other 

future manufacturers and processors 

will be subject to a TSCA section 5(a)(2) 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that 

is expected to be promulgated in 2016. 

The requirements of the consent order 

and SNUR would apply to all 

commercial manufacturing, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use and 

disposal of 2-BTP, unless exempted. 

Consistent with today’s proposed 

listing, the consent order and SNUR will 

require use of 2-BTP for aircraft either 

(1) as a total flooding agent in engine 

nacelles and APUs on aircraft or (2) as 

a streaming agent in handheld 

extinguishers in aircraft. As noted above 

in section VI.D.1.d, FAA has issued 

guidance on the use of hand-held fire 

extinguishers on aircraft that is relevant 

to the streaming uses proposed in this 

rule. 

g. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA is requesting comment on all 

aspects of the proposed listing decision, 

including the proposed use conditions. 

2. Proposed Change of Status for Certain 

Perfluorocarbons 

As described in Table 23, EPA is 

proposing to change the listings from 

acceptable to unacceptable for C3F8

(PFC-218) and C4F10 (PFC-410) in total 

flooding systems. We note that these 

changes of status apply to the 

manufacture of new equipment using 

these agents. Existing equipment that 

contains these agents may continue to 

be used for the remaining lifetime of the 

equipment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22885 

228WMO, 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone 

Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and 

Monitoring Project. Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. 

This document is accessible at: http://

www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/

report.html. 

229EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under 

the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 

March, 2016. 

TABLE 23—PROPOSED CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR TOTAL FLOODING

End-use Substitutes Proposed decision 

Total flooding ....................................... PFCs (C3F8 and C4F10) ...................... Unacceptable as of one year after publication of a final rule. 

a. What is the affected end-use? 

The fire suppression and explosion 

protection end-uses addressed in this 

action is total flooding. The fire 

suppression industry has historically 

used halons, a class of halogenated 

chemicals containing bromine, as clean 

extinguishing agents (i.e., those that do 

not leave residue following system 

discharge) in many different 

applications. Halon 1301 has been used 

in fixed total flooding systems. 

Halons have a unique combination of 

characteristics including being 

electrically non-conductive, dissipating 

rapidly without residue (i.e., clean), 

efficiently extinguishing most types of 

fires, and low toxicity. These agents are 

extremely effective on ordinary 

combustibles, flammable liquids and 

gases, and electrical fires (i.e., Class A, 

Class B, and Class C fires, respectively). 

These characteristics allowed halon 

systems to be widely used to effectively 

protect valuable and sensitive assets in 

locations such as computer and control 

rooms, electronic data processing 

facilities, museums, military equipment, 

shipboard machinery, space, aircraft, 

and oil and gas industry facilities. 

Halons have very high ODPs because 

they contain bromine, which has a 

higher reactivity with ozone than 

chlorine. Specifically, the ODP of halon 

1301 is 15.9.228 EPA banned the 

production and import of newly 

produced halons beginning January 1, 

1994 (58 FR 65018; December 10, 1993) 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA and the Montreal Protocol. In 

addition, EPA issued regulations 

codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart H to 

reduce emissions of halon through 

technician training and proper disposal. 

The U.S. fire suppression industry 

supported the phase out of halon 

production by working to find effective 

substitutes and to reduce unnecessary 

emissions of halon. Recycled halon is 

relied on for continuing uses of halons. 

In response to the early 1994 phaseout 

of halon production, industry took early 

actions to find alternatives including 

less ozone-depleting HCFCs, non-ozonedepleting HFCs, as well as a variety of 

lower-GWP or no-GWP alternatives (e.g., 

inert gases, CO2, powdered aerosols, 

foams, water). Industry also took actions 

to minimize emissions and halon 

recycling emerged as an important 

initiative to both reduce unnecessary 

emissions, and to ensure supplies of 

halons during the transition. Other 

efforts included changes to national and 

international fire codes and standards to 

discourage the use of halons for testing 

and training while supporting the 

adoption of the alternatives listed as 

acceptable in fire suppression and 

explosion protection by EPA’s SNAP 

program. 

b. Which fire suppressants is EPA 

proposing to list as unacceptable? 

EPA is proposing to list C4F10 (PFC410) and C3F8 (PFC-218) as 

unacceptable in certain uses for which 

they are currently listed as acceptable 

subject to narrowed use limits. 

c. How do the proposed unacceptable 

fire suppressants compare to other fire 

suppressants for this end-use with 

respect to SNAP criteria? 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. In addition, a 

technical support document 229 that 

provides the Federal Register citations 

concerning data on the SNAP criteria 

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

flammability) for acceptable alternatives 

in the relevant end-uses may be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0663). 

(a) Environmental Impacts 

PFCs are fully fluorinated 

compounds, unlike CFCs, HCFCs, or 

HFCs. These chemicals have an ODP of 

zero, are excluded from the definition of 

VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 

CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 

development of SIPs to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS, and have high 

GWPs (5,000–10,000 times greater than 

CO2). Although the actual contributions 

to global warming depend upon the 

quantities emitted, because of their long 

atmospheric lifetimes, the warming 

effects of PFCs are essentially 

irreversible. As discussed in Section III 

above and in EPA’s Endangerment 

Finding (74 FR 66496; December 7, 

2009), EPA determined that PFCs are 

one of the six key well-mixed 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—in 

addition to CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, and 

SF6—whose current and projected 

concentrations were found to threaten 

the public health and welfare of current 

and future generations. 

TABLE 24—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF C3F8, AND C4F10 COMPARED TO OTHER TOTAL FLOODING AGENTS

Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Total flooding 

C3F8, C4F10 ......................................................................................................... 8,830–8,860 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

CF3I ..................................................................................................................... 0.4 0.008 Yes .......... No change. 

FK-5-1-12mmy2 .................................................................................................. <1 0 No ............ No change. 

HCFC-124, HCFC Blend A ................................................................................. 610–1,550 0.048–0.22 No ............ No change. 

Halotron II, HFC-125, HFC-227ea ...................................................................... 1,600–3,500 0 No ............ No change. 

HFC-236fa .......................................................................................................... 9,810 0 No ............ No change. 

HFC-23 ............................................................................................................... 14,800 0 No ............ No change. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 24—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF C3F8, AND C4F10 COMPARED TO OTHER TOTAL FLOODING AGENTS— 

Continued 

Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Proposal 

Water, Inert gases, Powdered aerosols A–E ..................................................... 0 0 No ............ No change. 

Streaming 

C6F14 ................................................................................................................... 9,300 0 No ............ Unacceptable. 

CO2 ..................................................................................................................... 1 0 No ............ No change. 

C7 fluoroketone, FK-5-1-12mmy2 ...................................................................... <1 0 No ............ No change. 

HCFC Blend B, HCFC-123, HCFC-124 ............................................................. 77–1,546 0.00098–0.048 No ............ No change. 

HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa ...................................................................................... 3,220–9,810 0 No ............ No change. 

H Galden HFPEs ................................................................................................ 2,790–6,230 0 No ............ No change. 

Water ................................................................................................................... 0 0 No ............ No change. 

As shown in Table 24, C3F8 has a 

GWP of 8,830. EPA found the substitute 

acceptable only in those limited 

instances where no other alternative is 

technically feasible due to performance 

or safety requirements (60 FR 31092; 

July 13, 1995). C4F10 has a GWP of 

8,860. Because of similar concerns 

including the GWPs, EPA listed these as 

substitutes that would be used as a last 

resort. Other commonly-used 

alternatives for total flooding 

applications have lower GWPs 

including HFC-227ea (with GWP of 

3,220), HFC-125 (with a GWP of 3,500), 

and C6 Fluoroketone (with a GWP of 

approximately one). 

(b) Flammability 

C3F8 and C4F10 are non-flammable, 

like all other fire suppression agents 

listed as acceptable under SNAP. 

(c) Toxicity 

In evaluating the toxicity concerns 

with fire suppression agents, we 

evaluate consumer and worker 

exposures to discharges of substitutes 

during fire emergencies and accidental 

discharges. In these acute, episodic 

exposures to the substitutes, cardiac 

sensitization is of particular interest. 

The term cardiac sensitization refers to 

an increased susceptibility of the heart 

to adrenaline (or other catecholamines) 

which may result in potentially fatal 

heart arrhythmias. Human heart 

arrhythmias and sudden deaths 

resulting from overexposure to CFCs, 

halons, and other halogenated 

hydrocarbons have been documented in 

workplace settings. 

The determination of the toxicity risk 

to either workers or the general 

population from an accidental discharge 

of either a flooding or streaming agent 

substitute is also dependent on a 

number of other related factors. For total 

flood systems, the magnitude of 

exposure will depend on the design 

concentration of the flooding agent (as 

determined by the substitute’s 

extinguishing concentration plus a 

safety factor, as specified by NFPA 

guidelines) and the length of time it 

takes a person to evacuate the area in 

which the agent is released. Because 

total flood systems are designed to 

achieve a uniform concentration of 

agent within a space, the magnitude of 

exposure is independent of the size of 

space, size of fire, or proximity of 

person to the fire. In assessing exposure 

the design concentration of a total flood 

substitute is compared to its cardiotoxic 

NOAEL and LOAEL levels. Generally, 

for occupied areas, if the design 

concentration is higher than the agent’s 

NOAEL level, conditions are placed on 

the use of the agent to ensure human 

safety (e.g., lower time allowed for safe 

egress). 

Compared to other substitutes in the 

same total flooding end-use, these PFCs 

have lower toxicity profiles. The 

cardiotoxic NOAEL for C4F10 is 40 

percent which is well above its 

demonstrated extinguishing 

concentration of 5.5 percent in total 

flood applications, indicating its safe 

use in occupied areas. The cardiotoxic 

NOAEL for C3F8 is 30 percent which is 

also well above its demonstrated 

extinguishing concentration of 7.3 

percent with cup burner tests in heptane 

(with a resulting design concentration of 

8.8 percent), also indicating its safe use 

in occupied areas. In comparison, HFC227ea has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of nine 

percent and an extinguishing 

concentration of 5.2 percent (minimum 

extinguishing concentration for Class A 

fires) and C6-perfluoroketone has a 

cardiotoxic NOAEL of ten percent and 

an extinguishing concentration of 3.5 

percent (minimum extinguishing 

concentration for Class A fires). For 

HFC-227ea and C6-perfluoroketone, the 

concentrations needed to extinguish 

typical Class A fires are below the 

NOAEL. In addition, NFPA 2001 

Standard for Clean Agent Extinguishing 

Systems contains the times for safe 

human exposure at specific 

concentrations for both HFC-227ea and 

C6-pefluoroketone in order to allow safe 

egress of personnel from the protected 

space in the event of a system discharge. 

Current industry practices include 

additional safeguards for these systems 

such as pre-discharge alarms and timedelays. While C4F10 and C3F8 have lower 

toxicity profiles, the greater toxicity 

risks of the other alternatives for the 

same end-uses are mitigated by 

requirements as established in NFPA 

2001, which requires that the alternative 

have first been reviewed in a process 

equivalent to that used by SNAP and 

then provides the minimum 

requirements for the safe design, 

installation, maintenance, and operation 

of total flooding systems using clean 

agent alternatives such as HFC-227ea 

and C6-perfluoroketone. 

In comparing the environmental and 

health risks of C3F8 and C4F10 with other 

alternatives in the same total flooding 

end-use, C3F8 and C4F10 both have 

higher GWPs. While C3F8 and C4F10

have lower toxicity profiles, the greater 

toxicity of other alternatives in the same 

end-use are mitigated by the fact that 

requirements for safe use of these 

alternatives are contained in fire 

protection industry standards (e.g., 

NFPA 2001). Other criteria are 

comparable to many agents already 

listed as acceptable under SNAP for this 

end-use. Because the GWPs for C3F8 and 

C4F10 are significantly higher and thus 

pose significantly greater risk than other 

alternatives in the same end-use, we are 

proposing to list C3F8 and C4F10 as 

unacceptable for total flooding 

applications. 

(d) Summary 

EPA has listed as acceptable several 

substitutes that pose lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment 

than the two fire suppression 

alternatives, C3F8 and C4F10, whose 

status we are proposing to change to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22887 

230 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 2015. 

231TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Halons 

Technical Options Committee (Vol. 1). This 

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

en/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/

HTOC%202014%20Assessment%20Report.pdf. 

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP 

are not significantly different for the 

other available alternatives in the same 

total flooding end-use than for the fire 

suppression agents we are proposing to 

list as unacceptable. Neither the 

substitutes we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable nor the other available 

alternatives pose a significantly greater 

risk based on toxicity because all may 

be used consistent with NFPA 2001. 

However, the GWPs for the fire 

suppression agents, C3F8 and C4F10, 

which we are proposing to list as 

unacceptable, are significantly higher 

and thus pose significantly greater risk. 

Because the GWPs for C3F8 and C4F10

are significantly higher than other 

available alternatives in this end-use 

and there is no significant difference in 

risk based on the other evaluation 

criteria, we are proposing to list C3F8

and C4F10 as unacceptable for total 

flooding applications. 

d. When would the status change? 

Today, the demand in the fire 

suppression total flooding end-use is 

being met through the availability of 

clean agents and not-in-kind (NIK) 

substitutes (i.e., non-gaseous agents, 

including powdered aerosols, foam, and 

water mist).230 The current market for 

the total flooding end-use consists of 

commercially available and proven 

alternatives including HCFCs, HFCs, 

inert gases, and a variety of NIK 

extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered 

aerosols, foams water) and technologies. 

National and international standards 

currently cover the requirements, 

specifications, and recommendations for 

design, installation, testing, 

maintenance, and safety factors for 

many of these alternatives in the total 

flooding end-use. 

Considering the above, and the 

current suite of other available 

substitutes in the fire suppression total 

flooding end uses EPA is proposing to 

change the listings from acceptable to 

unacceptable for C3F8 and C4F10 in total 

flooding systems as of one year after 

publication of a final rule. Based on the 

information available to EPA today on 

the total flooding agent markets as 

discussed above, including through 

various discussions with industry 

representatives, users have other 

available alternatives with lower overall 

risks to human health and the 

environment. Given the broad 

commercial availability of the 

alternative systems already and 

coverage by national and international 

standards of many of the alternatives, 

one year provides a reasonable 

timeframe for the change in status for 

C3F8 and C4F10 in total flooding systems. 

e. What is the relationship between this 

proposed SNAP rule and other federal 

rules? 

EPA is not aware of other federal rules 

applying to these two fire suppression 

agents in the total flooding end-use. 

f. On which topics is EPA specifically 

requesting comment? 

EPA requests comments on all aspects 

of these proposed changes. EPA 

specifically requests comment on the 

proposed decision to change the status 

of C3F8 and C4F10 to unacceptable one 

year after the date of publication of a 

final rule, and requests updated 

information with regard to the use of 

these PFCs in total flooding applications 

as well as the availability of other 

substitutes for this end-use. EPA is also 

interested in advance comments on 

whether to take similar action with 

respect to certain additional fire 

suppression agents. Specifically, EPA 

requests advance comments and 

updated information on total flooding 

uses of SF6,HFC-23, and HFC-125, and 

on both total flooding and streaming 

uses of HFC-227ea. SF6 is listed as 

acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits for use as a discharge test agent 

in military uses and civilian aircraft 

uses only (60 FR 31092; July 13, 1995). 

SF6 is a nonflammable, nontoxic gas 

which is colorless and odorless. SF6 is 

relatively inert, and has an atmospheric 

lifetime of 3,200 years, with a GWP of 

22,800. SF6 is the most potent GHG the 

IPCC has evaluated. The U.S. Navy has 

used SF6 as a test gas simulant in place 

of halon in new halon total flooding 

systems on ships which have been 

under construction prior to 

identification and qualification of 

substitute agents. Halon systems are no 

longer included in designs for new 

ships. Similarly, the airline industry 

had an interest in using SF6 as a 

discharge test agent simulating halon 

1301 in aircraft system certification 

testing to ensure aircraft in-flight fire 

safety. The amount of SF6 released in 

developing and certifying these critical 

systems for commercial aircraft was 

estimated to be approximately 1,000 

pounds per year or less for this 

development period, however airlines 

continue to build new aircraft with 

halon systems. EPA is not aware of SF6

use in other commercial sector testing 

regimes, and EPA imposed a narrowed 

use limit on SF6 as a discharge test agent 

to ensure that emissions of this agent 

remain minimal. The NFPA 12a and 

NFPA 2001 standards recommend that 

halon or other total flooding gases not 

be used in discharge testing, but that 

alternative methods of ensuring 

enclosure and piping integrity and 

system functioning be used. Alternative 

methods can often be used, such as the 

‘‘door fan’’ test for enclosure integrity, 

UL 1058 testing to ensure system 

functioning, pneumatic test of installed 

piping, and a ‘‘puff’’ test to ensure 

against internal blockages in the piping 

network. These stringent design and 

testing requirements have largely 

obviated the need to perform a 

discharge test for total flood systems 

containing either halon 1301 or a 

substitute agent outside of military and 

civil aircraft uses. 

EPA requests comment and updated 

information on whether there is current 

or continuing use of SF6 in this end-use 

and the availability of substitutes or 

alternative technologies or processes 

that would obviate its continued use. 

HFC-23 is listed as acceptable as a 

total flooding substitute. In the SNAP 

final rule of March 18, 1994 (59 FR 

13044), EPA decided not to adopt the 

proposed narrowed use limits on HFC23 in response to comments that its 

cardiotoxicity profile was favorable 

compared to its design or inerting 

concentration and in some cases it was 

the only acceptable alternative in 

particular applications such as: (1) 

Where temperatures are likely to go 

below zero degrees, (2) where preinerting is required for occupied areas, 

and (3) where occupied areas can suffer 

considerable variation in fire volume. 

HFC-23 is used as a total flooding agent 

in occupied areas because of its 

favorable cardiotoxicity profile with 

values of 30 percent for the NOAEL and 

50 percent for the LOAEL, compared to 

a design concentration of 14.4 percent, 

based on cup burner tests in heptane. 

Compared to an inerting concentration 

in methane of 20.5 percent and an 

inerting design concentration of 22.6 

percent in methane, the agent made for 

an excellent candidate for use in 

explosion inertion. Nevertheless, it is 

also a potent greenhouse gas with a 

GWP of 14,800. 

In its 2014 Assessment, the UNEP 

TEAP HTOC reported on the status of 

the use of halons and alternatives in the 

various sector of use including in 

pipelines and the oil and gas 

industry.231 Halon 1301 is used for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

232 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 

States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. October 2015. 

233 ICF, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of HighGWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air 

maintaining legacy systems used to 

prevent explosions and to suppress fires 

in inhospitable locations such as the 

Alaskan North Slope in the United 

States. This situation remains the same 

today since ‘‘existing facilities were 

designed and constructed with halon 

1301 fixed systems as an integral part of 

the safety system design as well as the 

physical layout of the facility.’’ New 

facilities adopt inherently safe design 

approaches that eliminate the p otential 

flammable or explosive hazards. New 

technologies such as advanced detection 

systems also reduce reliance on need to 

close and inert the space. However, 

where an inerting agent is still required 

in occupied spaces, halon 1301 has been 

replaced by HFC-23 or C6- 

perfluoroketone, if temperatures permit. 

Currently, HFC-23 is the only 

alternative determined to meet both the 

requirement to mitigate inerting highGWP gas release, such as methane, and 

perform its function in fully enclosed 

spaces in very cold climatic conditions. 

EPA requests comment and updated 

information on the continuing use of 

HFC-23 in this and potentially other 

applications in this end-use and the 

availability of substitutes or alternative 

technologies or processes that would 

obviate its continued use. 

With significant progress made by the 

U.S. total flooding systems industry in 

adopting a variety of suppression agent 

alternatives, EPA understands that, as a 

result, a mix of agents are in use today 

with high-GWP HFCs occupying a 

substantial portion of the products on 

the market. Currently, HFCs account for 

approximately 23 percent of the 

alternatives used to replace halon 1301, 

while HFC-227ea constitutes a majority 

of that total, with some use of other 

HFCs such as HFC-23 and HFC-125.232

EPA, therefore, also requests comment 

and updated information on the 

continuing use of HFC-125 and HFC227ea in fire protection and explosion 

protection. HFC-227ea is an acceptable 

alternative for both total flooding (59 FR 

12044; March 18, 1994) and streaming 

(64 FR 22987; April 28, 1999) 

applications; HFC-125 is an acceptable 

alternative for total flooding uses (59 FR 

12044; March 18, 1994). The 

extinguishing concentration for HFC227ea for typical Class A fires in 

heptane is below its NOAEL making it 

appropriate it for use as a total flooding 

agent in normally occupied spaces, 

while the extinguishing concentration 

for HFC-125 is above its cardiotoxic 

NOAEL making it appropriate for use in 

spaces that are not normally occupied. 

EPA is requesting comment and 

updated information on the continuing 

use of these alternatives and the 

availability of substitutes or alternative 

technologies or processes that would 

obviate their continued use. 

3. Proposed Removal of Powdered 

Aerosol D in Total Flooding From the 

List of Substitutes Acceptable for Use 

Subject to Use Conditions 

Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic 

particulate aerosol and explosion 

suppressant that also is marketed under 

the trade names of Aero-K® and Stat-X®. 

This fire suppressant is supplied to 

users as a solid housed in a doublewalled hermetically-sealed steel 

container. When the unit is triggered by 

heat (300 °C), the product is 

pyrotechnically activated to produce 

gases and aerosol particles from a 

mixture of chemicals. EPA listed 

Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable 

subject to use conditions as a total 

flooding agent (71 FR 56359; September 

7, 2006). The use conditions required 

that Powdered Aerosol D be used only 

in areas that are not normally occupied, 

because the Agency did not have 

sufficient information at that time 

supporting its safe use in areas that are 

normally occupied. Based on a review 

of additional information from the 

submitter to support the safe use of 

Powdered Aerosol D in normally 

occupied spaces, EPA subsequently 

determined that Powdered Aerosol D is 

also acceptable for use in total flooding 

systems for normally occupied spaces 

(79 FR 62863; October 21, 2014). The 

listing provides that Powdered Aerosol 

D is acceptable for total flooding uses, 

which includes both unoccupied and 

occupied spaces. In the October 2014 

listing action, EPA noted that in a 

subsequent rulemaking, the Agency 

would remove the previous listing of 

acceptable subject to use conditions. 

Today, EPA is proposing to remove this 

listing for Powdered Aerosol D. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://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. It raises novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. These are available in docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663 under the 

titles, ‘‘Climate Benefits of the Proposed 

SNAP Program Status Change Rule’’ and 

‘‘Preliminary Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives used in 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, 

Foams, and Fire Suppression.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0226. This proposed 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 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small businesses. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, EPA 

evaluated small businesses as defined 

by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

The Agency has determined that about 

90 small businesses could be subject to 

the rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent 

of the small businesses subject to this 

proposed rulemaking would be 

expected to experience compliance 

costs of less than one percent of annual 

sales revenue. Details of this analysis 

are presented in the document entitled, 

‘‘Economic Impact Screening Analysis 

for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 

Status of High-GWP Alternatives used 

in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, 

and Fire Suppression.’’ EPA evaluated 

the potential costs to small businesses 

associated with the proposed rule. EPA 

estimates that the total annualized 

compliance costs for all small 

businesses would be approximately 

$11.8 to $14.4 million at a seven percent 

discount rate, or $11.5 to $14.0 million 

at a three percent discount rate.233

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22889 

Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. 

February, 2016. 

234 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers 

Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

235 ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Very Low 

Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R290) and Ethane (R-170). 

236 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial 

Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

237 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential 

and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. 

238 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and 

Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

Today’s action allows equipment 

manufacturers the additional options of 

using propane, HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP 

in the specified end-uses but does not 

mandate such use. Because these 

substitutes are not yet being used in the 

United States for the end-uses (with the 

exception of limited test-marketing), no 

change in business practice would be 

required to meet the use conditions, 

resulting in no adverse impact 

compared to the absence of this rule. 

Provisions that allow venting of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in the uses of 

propane addressed by this proposed 

rule would reduce regulatory burden. 

We have therefore concluded that this 

action would relieve regulatory burden 

for all small entities that choose to use 

propane as a refrigerant in the end-uses 

in this proposed listing. The use 

conditions of this proposed rule apply 

to manufacturers of commercial ice 

machines, water coolers, and very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment 

that choose to use propane. 

The requirements of this proposed 

rule with respect to HFCs, if finalized as 

proposed, would impact small 

businesses that manufacture food 

processing and dispensing equipment, 

household refrigerators and freezers, 

cold storage refrigeration systems, and 

polyurethane foams; operators of cold 

storage refrigeration systems, including 

refrigerated warehouses, wholesalers, 

and food manufacturers; and 

manufacture and use cold storage 

warehouses, and small businesses that 

import products containing closed cell 

phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, 

PU, and polystyrene foams 

manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam 

blowing agents. The proposal to prohibit 

use of methylene chloride as a foam 

blowing agent is not anticipated to 

impact small businesses because this 

substance is not expected to be used 

currently as a blowing agent. This rule’s 

provisions do not create enforceable 

requirements for refrigeration and AC 

technicians, but they would indirectly 

affect technicians servicing motor 

vehicle AC systems, certain types of 

retail food refrigeration equipment, cold 

storage warehouses, and commercial AC 

equipment where the technician, rather 

than the refrigeration or AC equipment 

owner, purchases servicing equipment 

for different refrigerants. EPA expects 

these indirect impacts on technicians 

are minimal, because the transitions to 

different refrigerants required by this 

proposed rule are already occurring due 

to corporate social responsibility 

initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum 

pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), 

and because many of the still-acceptable 

alternatives are already used for these 

refrigeration or AC equipment types. 

Further, most acceptable HFC 

refrigerant blends can be recovered and 

serviced using equipment that service 

technicians already own. In some uses, 

there is no significant impact of the 

proposed rule because the substitutes 

proposed to be prohibited are not 

widely used (e.g., use of 

perfluorocarbons for fire suppression, 

use of methylene chloride as a foam 

blowing agent in various types of foam). 

A significant portion of the businesses 

regulated under this proposed rule are 

not small businesses (e.g., commercial 

AC manufacturers). We have therefore 

concluded that this action will not have 

a significant impact on a significant 

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. The 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. EPA is aware that 

the California Air Resources Board is 

considering regulation of a number of 

the substitutes and end-uses in this 

proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits 

comment on whether any state agencies 

have existing environmental 

requirements affecting the substitutes 

and the end-uses in this proposed rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 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, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This proposed rule restricts 

the use of certain substitutes that have 

greater overall risks for human health 

and the environment, primarily due to 

their high global warming potential. The 

reduction in GHG emissions would 

provide climate benefits for all people, 

including benefits for children and 

future generations. The public is invited 

to submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of early life exposure to the 

alternatives addressed in the 

comparisons of toxicity for the various 

substitutes, as well as risk screens for 

the substitutes that are proposed to be 

listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, or are newly listed as 

unacceptable.234 235 236 237 238 The risk 

screens are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

For the end-uses that are related to 

energy effects such as refrigeration and 

AC, a number of alternatives are 

available to replace those refrigerants 

that are proposed as unacceptable in 

this action; many of the alternatives are 

as energy efficient or more energy 

efficient than the substitutes being 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22890 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

239 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers 

Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

240 ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Very Low 

Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R290) and Ethane (R-170). 

241 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial 

Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

242 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential 

and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. 

243 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and 

Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

proposed unacceptable. Thus, we have 

concluded that this proposed rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy 

effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. EPA proposes to use 

standards from UL in the use conditions 

for propane. These use conditions 

would ensure that these new substitutes 

for very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment, commercial ice machines, 

and water coolers, do not present 

significantly greater risk to human 

health or the environment than other 

alternatives. 

EPA is proposing to incorporate by 

reference portions of current editions of 

the UL Standard 399, ‘‘Standard for 

Drinking-Water Coolers’’; UL Standard 

471, ‘‘Standard for Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers’’; and UL 

Standard 563, ‘‘Standard for Ice 

Makers’’, which includes requirements 

for the safe use of refrigerants . 

Specifically, these standards are: 

1. Supplement SB to UL Standard 

399: Requirements for Drinking Water 

Coolers Employing A Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System 

(7th Edition, August 22, 2008). This 

document establishes requirements for 

self-contained drinking water coolers, 

including those supplying cold and/or 

hot water and those employing 

flammable refrigerants. The standard is 

available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/

standard/?id=399, and may be 

purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 

Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; 

Email: orders@comm-2000.com; 

Telephone: 1–888–853–3503 in the U.S. 

or Canada (other countries dial +1–415– 

352–2168); Internet address: http://

ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm2000.com. The cost of UL 399 is $798 

for an electronic copy and $998 for 

hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription 

service to the Standards Certification 

Customer Library (SCCL) that allows 

unlimited access to their standards and 

related documents. The cost of 

obtaining this standard is not a 

significant financial burden for 

equipment manufacturers and purchase 

is not required for those selling, 

installing and servicing the equipment. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL 

standard being incorporated by 

reference is reasonably available. 

2. Supplement SB to UL Standard 

471: Requirements for Refrigerators and 

Freezers Employing A Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System 

(10th Edition, November 24, 2010). This 

document establishes requirements for 

commercial refrigerators and freezers 

that employ a refrigerant that has been 

identified as having flammable 

characteristics. The standard is available 

at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/

?id=471&edition=10&doctype=ulstd, 

and may be purchased by mail at: 

COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, 

Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@

comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1–888– 

853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other 

countries dial +1–415–352–2168); 

Internet address: http://

ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm2000.com. The cost of UL 471 is $716 

for an electronic copy and $897 for 

hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription 

service to the SCCL that allows 

unlimited access to their standards and 

related documents. The cost of 

obtaining this standard is not a 

significant financial burden for 

equipment manufacturers and purchase 

is not required for those selling, 

installing and servicing the equipment. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL 

standard being incorporated by 

reference is reasonably available. 

3. Supplement SA to UL Standard 

563: Requirements for Ice Makers 

Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in 

the Refrigeration System (8th Edition, 

July 31, 2009). This document 

establishes requirements for automatic 

ice makers, including unitary and 

remote ice makers. The standard is 

available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/

standard/

?id=563&edition=8&doctype=ulstd, and 

may be purchased by mail at: COMM 

2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, 

IL 60106; Email: orders@comm2000.com; Telephone: 1–888–853–3503 

in the U.S. or Canada (other countries 

dial +1–415–352–2168); Internet 

address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or 

www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 

563 is $716 for an electronic copy and 

$897 for hardcopy. UL also offers a 

subscription service to the SCCL that 

allows unlimited access to their 

standards and related documents. The 

cost of obtaining this standard is not a 

significant financial burden for 

equipment manufacturers and purchase 

is not required for those selling, 

installing and servicing the equipment. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL 

standard being incorporated by 

reference is reasonably available. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the list of 

refrigerants that ASHRAE designates as 

flammability Class 3 according to 

ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, 

Designation and Safety Classification of 

Refrigerants, in the unacceptability 

listing for certain highly flammable 

refrigerants for use in existing 

residential and light commercial split 

AC systems. This standard is available 

at https://www.ashrae.org/resourcespublications/bookstore/standards-15- 

34, and may be purchased by mail at: 

6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48108; by telephone: 1–800–527–4723 

in the U.S. or Canada; Internet address: 

http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/

ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_

token=. The cost of ASHRAE Standard 

34–2013 is $107 for an electronic or 

hardcopy. The cost of obtaining this 

standard is not a significant financial 

burden for equipment manufacturers 

and purchase is not required for those 

selling, installing and servicing the 

equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes 

that the ASHRAE standard being 

incorporated by reference is reasonably 

available. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The human health or environmental 

risk addressed by this action will not 

have potential disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations. This 

action’s health and risk assessments are 

contained in the comparisons of toxicity 

for the various substitutes, as well as 

risk screens for the substitutes that are 

proposed to be listed as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, or are newly 

listed as unacceptable.239 240 241 242 243

The risk screens are in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

VIII. References 

A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to 

Incompleteness Letter from A.S. Trust & 

Holdings to EPA—Sent March 7, 2014. 

AHRI, 2014. Guideline N–2014 for 

Assignment of Refrigerant Container 

Colors. This document is accessible 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22891 

online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_

Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_

Guideline_N_2014.pdf. 

AHRI, 2015. AHRI Will Reinforce Refrigerant 

R&D Commitment at White House Event. 

October 15, 2015. This document is 

accessible at: http://www.ahrinet.org/

site/320/News-Events/News-andShipping-Releases?A=1112. 

AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 

Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable 

Refrigerants. 2013. This document is 

accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/

ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681- 

e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuide 

AIRAH.pdf. 

Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for 

Propylene. 

Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Climate Change: Summaries of Recent 

Scientific and Papers. 2013. 

ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

15–2013: Safety Standard for 

Refrigeration Systems. 

ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

34–2013: Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants. 

ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook— 

Refrigeration. The American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and Airconditioning Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, 

Georgia, USA. ISBN 978–1–936504–71– 

8; ISSN 1930–7195. 

Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for 

R-290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. 

Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed 

SNAP Program Status Change Rule 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198, comment submitted by Clayton 

Corporation. October 20, 2014. Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 

0133. 

Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton 

Corporation Meeting with EPA 

Stratospheric Protection Division, 

December 8, 2015. 

Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd 

chiller, June 30, 2014. This document is 

accessible at www.coolingpost.com/

world-news/trane-first-with-1233zdchiller/. 

Cooling Post, 2015. ‘‘Chemours to build HFO1336mzz plant,’’ November 17, 2015. 

This document is accessible online at: 

http://www.coolingpost.com/worldnews/chemours-to-build-hfo-1336mzzplant/. 

DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal 

Buildings. Available at: https://

www.energycodes.gov/regulations/

federal-building-standards. Last updated 

February 13, 2014. 

Doniger and Yurek, 2016. Doniger, David 

(NRDC) and Stephen Yurek (AHRI), 

February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter 

Regarding Chiller Actions Under SNAP. 

DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric 

Ozone: Change of Listing Status for 

Certain Substitutes under the Significant 

New Alternatives Policy Program. 

Submitted by Michael Parr and Mack 

McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. 

Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198–0077. 

Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in 

Domestic Refrigeration. Accessible at: 

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/

greenfreeze.htm. 

EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify 

the status under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program, of certain 

high-GWP chemicals in various enduses. Submitted October 6, 2015. 

EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

December, 2009. This document is 

accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/

climatechange/Downloads/

endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. 

EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07–0601. 

Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0664-0036. 

EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to 

Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, Inc. June, 2013. 

This document is accessible at: http://

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

2015-07/documents/mailfov_envirosafe_

06112013.pdf. 

EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency 

Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 

Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2. EPA– 

420–D–15–900. June 2015. Available at 

http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/

documents/420d15900.pdf. 

EPA, 2016a. Draft Climate Benefits of the 

SNAP Program Status Change Rule. 

February 2016. 

EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for 

End-Uses Considered in the Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, Protection of 

Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 

Modifications for Certain Substitutes 

under the Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. March, 2016. 

Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice 

for R-170 and R-290 in Very Low 

Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015. 

EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of 

the European Parliament and of the 

Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated 

greenhouse gases and repealing 

Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available 

online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_

.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG. 

FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Minimum Performance Standard 

for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This 

document is accessible at: http://

www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf. 

Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP 

Program Status Change Rule Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198, 

submitted by Dr. Thomas Fishback, Vice 

President, Research and Development, 

Fomo Products, Inc. October 16, 2014. 

Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0198–0139. 

Fomo, 2015. ‘‘The Use of Solstice® Gas 

Blowing Agent (GBA) in Low-Pressure 

Spray Polyurethane Foam Applications,’’ 

Cline, Mojee and Bogdan, Mary, October, 

2015. Polyurethane Industry Conference 

2015. 

FTOC, 2011. 2010 Report of the Rigid and 

Flexible Foams Technical Options 

Committee. This document is accessible 

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

Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. 

Gradient, 2013. Additional Risk Assessment 

of Alternative Refrigerant R-1234yf. 

Prepared by Gradient for SAE 

International Cooperative Research 

Program 1234–4. July 24, 2013. The 

Executive Summary of this document is 

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

standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/

executivesummary.pdf. 

Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed 

Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0198). October 20, 

2014. Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0198–0170. 

Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. 

Chipperfield, S.A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. 

Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of shortlived halogens at influencing climate 

through depletion of stratospheric ozone. 

Nature Geoscience, February 16, 2015. 

This document is accessible online at 

http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363. 

ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean 

Transportation: Regulatory 

Considerations for Advancing 

Commercial Pickup and Van Efficiency 

Technology in the United States. 

Available online at: http://

www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickupsvans-efficiency-technology. 

ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant 

Charge Size to Passenger Compartment 

Volume Ratio Analysis. Confidential 

Memorandum Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. 

ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment 

of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf 

and the Associated Production of TFA 

on Aquatic Communities and Local Air 

Quality. 

ICF, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle Air 

Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. 

This document is accessible at: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0664-0038. 

ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf 

Emissions Assumptions. 

ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the 

Vintaging Model that Impacted HFO1234yf Emissions Estimates. 

ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the 

Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the 

Associated Production of TFA on 

Aquatic Communities, Soil and Plants, 

and Local Air Quality. 

ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ 

results on projected maximum TFA 

rainwater concentrations and maximum 

8-hr ozone concentrations. 

ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential 

Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on 

Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 

February, 2014. 

ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC-22 in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps; Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22892 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC-22 in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps; Substitute: R-441A. 

ICF, 2015. 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, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for 

Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status 

of High-GWP Alternatives used in 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, 

Foams, and Fire Suppression. February, 

2016. 

ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening 

Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 

Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives 

used in Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 

Suppression. February, 2016. 

ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on 

Substitutes in Water Coolers Substitute: 

Propane (R-290). 

ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on 

Substitutes in Very Low Temperature 

Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290) 

and Ethane (R-170). 

ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on 

Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines 

Substitute: Propane (R-290). 

ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on 

Substitutes in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. 

ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on 

Substitutes in Chillers and Cold Storage 

Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R1270). 

ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 

Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold 

Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing 

and Dispensing Equipment, and 

Household Refrigeration Industries in 

the United States. Prepared for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

February, 2016. 

ICF, 2016i. Technical Support Document for 

Acceptability Listing of HFO-1234yf for 

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in 

Limited Heavy-Duty Applications. 

ICF, 2016j. Analysis of annual VOC 

emissions from the use of 2-BTP. 

ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and 

Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen 

on Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in 

Civil Aviation Applications. Substitute: 

2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). 

ICF, 2016l. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and 

Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen 

on Substitutes for Total Flooding 

Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. 

Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3- 

trifluoropropene (2-BTP). 

INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on 

Chemical Safety. Environmental Health 

Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second 

edition. World Health Organization, 

1996. This document is accessible online 

at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/

ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm. 

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. This 

document is accessible at: http://

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. 

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. This document is accessible 

at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/specialreports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf. 

JARN, 2015a. First Carrier AquaForce 

Chillers using HFO-1234ze, July 30, 

2015. This document is accessible at: 

http://www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID

=35619. 

JARN, 2015b. Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled 

Chiller with Climate-friendly Refrigerant 

DR-55, September 21, 2015. This 

document is accessible at: 

www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=36282. 

Kazil et al., 2014. Deposition and rainwater 

concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid in 

the United States from the use of HFO1234yf. JGR-Atmospheres, 2014. 

Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts 

in North America from degradation of 2, 

3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), 

a potential greenhouse gas replacement. 

Environmental Science & Technology 

2009. The document is accessible at: 

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/

Robert_Waterland/publication/

40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_

North_America_from_degradation_of_

2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-1234yf)_

a_potential_greenhouse_gas_

replacement/links/00b7d514ca9595bf

5e000000.pdf. 

Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, 

September, 2013. EPA SNAP 

Submittal—Revision to Extend R-290 

Use to Commercial Ice Machines, 

Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. 

Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: 

Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts. 

ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This 

document is accessible at: ftp://

ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/

2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf. 

NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of 

Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act 

Section 612 (Significant New 

Alternatives Policy). Submitted October 

6, 2015. 

ORNL, 2015. ORNL’s JUMP Challenge: JUMP 

in to Advance Tech Innovation! 

Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory. November 17, 2015. 

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. 

Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ‘‘OH 

reaction rate constant, IR absorption 

spectrum, ozone depletion potentials 

and global warming potentials of 2- 

bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,’’ J. 

Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, 

doi:10.1029/2012JD019051. 

RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the 

Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps Technical Options Committee. 

This document is accessible at: http://

ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/

documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report2014.pdf. 

SAE, 2013. SAE International Cooperative 

Research Project CRP1234–4 on R-1234yf 

Safety, Finishes Work and Presents 

Conclusions. This document is 

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

servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=

PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&

RELEASE_ID=2146. 

Sleasman, K. and Biggs, M., 2015. Lessons 

learned from the Federal Partners 

Workgroup on Spray Polyurethane Foam 

(SPF), presented at the Center for the 

Polyurethanes Industry Technical 

Conference, October, 2015. 

TEAP, 2013. Report of the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: 

Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, 

Additional Information on Alternatives 

to ODS. September, 2013. This document 

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

Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/

TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce

%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf. 

TEAP, 2015. 2014 Assessment Report of the 

Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel. This document is accessible at: 

http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/

meeting/oewg/oewg-36/presession/Back

ground%20Documents%20are%20

available%20in%20English%20only/

TEAP_Assessment_report_2014.pdf. 

TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the 

Halons Technical Options Committee 

(Vol. 1). This document is accessible at: 

http://ozone.unep.org/en/Assessment_

Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/HTOC%

202014%20Assessment%20Report.pdf. 

The White House, 2013. President’s Climate 

Action Plan. This document is accessible 

at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22893 

default/files/image/president27

sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

The White House, 2015. Fact Sheet: Obama 

Administration and Private-Sector 

Leaders Announce Ambitious 

Commitments and Robust Progress to 

Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, 

October 15, 2015. Accessible at https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/

2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obamaadministration-and-private-sectorleaders-announce. 

Trane, 2015. Trane® SintesisTM Air-cooled 

Chillers. This document is accessible at: 

http://www.trane.com/content/dam/

Trane/Commercial/global/productssystems/equipment/chillers/air-cooled/

TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf. 

UL, 2004. Standard 711—Rating and Testing 

of Fire Extinguishers. This document is 

accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/

standard/?id=711_7. 

UL, 2005. Standard 2129—Halocarbon Clean 

Agent Fire Extinguishers. This document 

is accessible at: http://

ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129_

2. 

UL, 2008. Standard 399—Standard for 

Drinking-Water Coolers. A summary of 

this document is accessible at: http://

ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7. 

UL, 2009. Standard 563—Standard for Ice 

Makers. A summary of this document is 

accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/

standard/?id=563. 

UL, 2010. Standard 471—Standard for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 

A summary of this document is 

accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/

standard/?id=471_10. 

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. 

VASA, 2014. Two injured in Perth HC 

refrigerant explosion. May 24, 2014. This 

document is accessible at: http://

www.vasa.org.au/two-injured-in-perthhc-refrigerant-explosion/. 

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. 

Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to 

Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing 

Agents. March, 2002. 

WMO, 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone 

Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research 

and Monitoring Project. Geneva, 

Switzerland, 2011. This document is 

accessible at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/

csd/assessments/ozone/2010/

report.html. 

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: March 29, 2016. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 82 as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671q. 

Subpart F—Recycling and Emissions 

Reduction 

■ 2. Amend § 82.154 by adding 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 82.154 Prohibitions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Effective [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], 

propane (R-290) in self-contained 

commercial ice machines, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment, 

and water coolers. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

■ 3. Appendix B to subpart G of part 82 

is amended by adding three entries at 

the end of the table titled 

‘‘Refrigerants—Acceptable Subject to 

Use Conditions’’ to 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 

*******

Motor vehicle air conditioning (newly 

manufactured medium-duty passenger vehicles).

HFO-1234yf ............... Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

(1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must adhere to all of the safety requirements of 

SAE J639 (adopted 2011), including requirements for a flammable refrigerant 

warning label, high-pressure compressor 

cutoff switch and pressure relief devices, 

and unique fittings. For connections with 

refrigerant containers for use in professional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised October 

2011).

(2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure 

Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for 

at least three years from the date of creation.

Additional training for service technicians 

recommended. 

HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS. Reg. No. 

754–12–1). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22894 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (newly 

manufactured 

heavy-duty pickup 

trucks).

HFO-1234yf ............... Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

(1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must adhere to all of the safety requirements of 

SAE J639 (adopted 2011), including requirements for a flammable refrigerant 

warning label, high-pressure compressor 

cutoff switch and pressure relief devices, 

and unique fittings. For connections with 

refrigerant containers for use in professional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised October 

2011).

(2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure 

Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for 

at least three years from the date of creation.

Additional training for service technicians 

recommended. 

HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS No 754–12– 

1). 

Motor vehicle air conditioning (newly 

manufactured complete heavy-duty 

vans only).

HFO-1234yf ............... Acceptable subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

(1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must adhere to all of the safety requirements of 

SAE J639 (adopted 2011), including requirements for a flammable refrigerant 

warning label, high-pressure compressor 

cutoff switch and pressure relief devices, 

and unique fittings. For connections with 

refrigerant containers for use in professional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised October 

2011).

(2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure 

Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for 

at least three years from the date of creation.

Additional training for service technicians 

recommended. 

HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS No 754–12– 

1). 

HFO-1234yf is acceptable for complete 

heavy-duty vans. Complete heavy-duty 

vans are not altered by a secondary or 

tertiary manufacturer. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix H to subpart G of part 82 

is amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘C3F8’’ and ‘‘C4F10’’ in the table titled 

‘‘Fire Suppression and Explosion 

Protection-Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits: Total Flooding 

Agents’’ to read as follows: 

Appendix H to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes, Effective 

May 28, 1999 

* * * * * 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS: TOTAL FLOODING

AGENTS

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information 

Total flooding HFC-236fa .. Acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits.

Acceptable when manufactured using any 

process that does not convert 

perfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) directly to 

HFC-236fa in a single step: 

Use of this agent should be in accordance 

with the safety guidelines in the latest 

edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for 

Clean Agent Fire Systems. 

For use in explosion suppression and explosion inertion applications, and for use 

in fire suppression applications where 

other non-PFC agents or alternatives are 

not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements: 

(a) Because of their physical or chemical 

properties, or 

(b) where human exposure to the extinguishing agents may result in failure to 

meet safety guidelines in the latest edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for 

Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems.

Users should observe the limitations on 

HFC-236fa acceptability by taking the following measures: 

(i) Conduct an evaluation of foreseeable 

conditions of end-use; 

(ii) determine that the physical or chemical 

properties, or other technical constraints 

of the other available agents preclude 

their use; and 

(iii) determine that human exposure to the 

other alternative extinguishing agents 

may result in failure to meet safety 

guidelines in the latest edition of the 

NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent 

Fire Extinguishing Systems. 

Documentation of such measures should 

be available for review upon request. 

The principal environmental characteristic 

of concern for HFC-236fa is its high 

GWP of 9400 and long atmospheric lifetime of 226 years. Actual contributions to 

global warming depend upon the quantities emitted. 

See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Additional comments: 

1—Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22895 

2—Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 

3—Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 

4—The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed. 

5—EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon 

substitutes. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Appendix K to subpart G of part 82 

is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix K to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in 

the July 22, 2002, Final Rule Effective 

August 21, 2002 

FOAM BLOWING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments 

Replacements for HCFC-141b in the following 

rigid polyurethane/polyisocyanurate applications: 

—Boardstock 

—Appliance 

—Spray 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b 

and blends thereof.

Unacceptable ..................................................

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured 

with these substitutes on or before [DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] may be used after that date. 

Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

All foam end-uses ............................................ HCFC-124 .................. Unacceptable ..................................................

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured 

with this substitute on or before [DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] may be used after that date 

Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

■ 6. Appendix M to subpart G of part 82 

is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix M to Subpart G— 

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the 

September 30, 2004 Final Rule, 

Effective November 29, 2004 

FOAM BLOWING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments 

All foam end-uses: 

—rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock 

—rigid polyurethane appliance 

—rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels 

—rigid polyurethane slabstock and other 

foams 

—polystyrene extruded insulation 

boardstock and billet 

—phenolic insulation board and bunstock 

—flexible polyurethane 

—polystyrene extruded sheet 

HCFC-141b ................ Unacceptable ..................................................

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured 

with this substitute on or before [DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] may be used after that date. 

Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

Except for: 1

—space vehicle 

—nuclear 

—defense 

—research and development for foreign 

customers 

1Exemptions for specific applications are identified in the list of acceptable substitutes. 

■ 7. Appendix O to subpart G of part 82 

is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix O to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Listed in the September 27, 

2006 Final Rule, Effective November 27, 

2006 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22896 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION SECTOR—TOTAL FLOODING SUBSTITUTES—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO

USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information 

Total flooding .................... Gelled Halocarbon/Dry 

Chemical Suspension 

(Envirogel) with sodium 

bicarbonate additive.

Acceptable subject to use 

conditions.

Use of whichever 

hydrofluorocarbon gas 

(HFC-125, HFC-227ea, 

or HFC-236fa) is employed in the formulation must be in accordance with all requirements for acceptability 

(i.e., narrowed use limits) of that HFC under 

EPA’s SNAP program.

Use of this agent should be in accordance with the 

safety guidelines in the latest edition of the NFPA 

2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, for whichever 

hydrofluorocarbon gas is employed, and the latest edition of the NFPA 2010 standard for Aerosol Extinguishing Systems. 

Sodium bicarbonate release in all settings should 

be targeted so that increased blood pH level 

would not adversely affect exposed individuals. 

Users should provide special training, including the 

potential hazards associated with the use of the 

HFC agent and sodium bicarbonate, to individuals required to be in environments protected by 

Envirogel with sodium bicarbonate additive extinguishing systems. 

Each extinguisher should be clearly labeled with 

the potential hazards from use and safe handling 

procedures. 

See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Total flooding .................... Powdered Aerosol E 

(FirePro®).

Acceptable subject to use 

conditions.

For use only in normally 

unoccupied areas.

Use of this agent should be in accordance with the 

safety guidelines in the latest edition of the NFPA 

2010 standard for Aerosol Extinguishing Systems. 

For establishments manufacturing the agent or filling, installing, or servicing containers or systems 

to be used in total flooding applications, EPA recommends the following: 

—Adequate ventilation should be in place to reduce 

airborne exposure to constituents of agent; 

—an eye wash fountain and quick drench facility 

should be close to the production area; 

—training for safe handling procedures should be 

provided to all employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or extinguishing 

units filled with the agent; 

—workers responsible for clean up should allow for 

maximum settling of all particulates before reentering area and wear appropriate protective 

equipment; and 

—all spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices. 

—See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Total flooding .................... Phosphorous Tribromide 

(PBr3).

Acceptable subject to use 

conditions..

For use only in aircraft 

engine nacelles..

For establishments manufacturing the agent or filling, installing, or servicing containers or systems, 

EPA recommends the following: 

—Adequate ventilation should be in place and/or 

positive pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) should be worn; 

—training for safe handling procedures should be 

provided to all employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or extinguishing 

units filled with the agent; and 

—all spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices. 

—See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Additional comments: 

1—Should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162. 

2—Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 

3—Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 

4—The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed. 

5—EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes. 

■ 8. Appendix Q to subpart G of part 82 

is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the 

March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective 

May 29, 2007 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22897 

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End use Substitute Decision Further information 

—Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration 

—Rigid polyurethane sandwich panels 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other 

foams 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b 

as substitutes for 

HCFC-141b.

Unacceptable 1 ................................................

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured 

with these substitutes on or before [DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] may be used after that date. 

Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate 

laminated boardstock 

—Rigid polyurethane appliance 

—Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial 

refrigeration, and sandwich panels 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other 

foams 

—Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock 

and billet 

—Phenolic insulation board and bunstock 

—Flexible polyurethane 

—Polystyrene extruded sheet 

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b 

as substitutes for 

CFCs.

Unacceptable 2 ................................................

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured 

with these substitutes on or before [DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE] may be used after that date. 

Alternatives exist with 

lower or zero-ODP. 

1For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the unacceptability determination 

is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine 

flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b that currently 

operates in only one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to coincide with a move to a 

new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination is effective 

January 1, 2010. 2For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the other foam end uses, as of 

November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010. 

■ 9. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 

is amended by revising the tables titled 

‘‘Foam Blowing Agents—Substitutes 

Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use 

Limits’’ and ‘‘Unacceptable Substitutes’’ 

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 September 18, 2015 

* * * * * 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Rigid Polyurethane: 

Appliance.

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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 PROPOSALS3

22898 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Flexible Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc, 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022 in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025 in 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, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain 

that other alternatives are not technically 

feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain 

the results of their technical investigation 

of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should 

include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will 

be available and projected time for 

switching. 

Rigid Polyurethane 

and 

Polyisocyanurate 

Laminated 

Boardstock.

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, HFC-365mfc 

and blends thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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 PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22899 

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

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Polystyrene: Extruded 

Boardstock and Billet.

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain 

that other alternatives are not technically 

feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

Users are required to document and retain 

the results of their technical investigation 

of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should 

include descriptions of: 

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed; 

• Substitutes examined and rejected; 

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical 

or safety standards; and/or 

• Anticipated date other substitutes will 

be available and projected time for 

switching. 

Polyolefin ................... HFC-134a, HFC245fa, 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, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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, HFC134a, HFC-245fa, 

HFC-365mfc, and 

blends thereof.

Acceptable Subject to 

Narrowed Use Limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until January 1, 2022, in military applications and 

until January 1, 2025, in 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. 

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE] may be used after that date.

HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion potential of 

0.11 under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found HCFC-141b unacceptable in all 

foam blowing end-uses (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). HCFC-141b has 

an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of 0.11. 

All Foam Blowing 

End-uses.

HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, 

and blends thereof.

Unacceptable effective September 18, 2015. 

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE] may be used after that date.

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22900 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE] may be used after that date.

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, HFC365mfc, and blends 

thereof.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, except 

where allowed under a narrowed use limit.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE] may be used after that date.

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2019, may be used after that date.

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL 

RULE] may be used after that date. 

These foam blowing agents have GWPs ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will 

be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment 

by the status change date. 

Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation 

Foam.

HFC-134a, 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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2020, may be used after that date. 

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2020, may be used after that date. 

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2020, may be used after that date. 

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2021, may be used after that date. 

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.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured with 

these substitutes on or before January 1, 

2020, may be used after that date. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22901 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Add appendix V to subpart G of 

part 82, to read as follows: 

Appendix V to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in 

the [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] Final Rule 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further information 

Commercial ice machines (self-contained) (new only).Propane (R-290) ........ Acceptable, subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

This refrigerant may be used only in new 

equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant—i.e., this 

refrigerant may not be used as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment. 

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 1910 must be followed, including 

those at 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable 

and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum 

gases), 1910.157 (portable fire extinguishers), and 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). 

This refrigerant may be used only in selfcontained commercial ice machines that 

meet all requirements listed in Supplement SA to UL 563.125 In cases where 

this rule includes requirements more stringent than those in UL 563, the equipment 

must meet the requirements of the final 

rule in place of the requirements in the UL 

Standard. 

The charge size must not exceed 150 g 

(5.29 oz) in each refrigerant circuit of a 

commercial ice machine. 

Proper ventilation should be maintained at 

all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants through adherence to good 

manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 

1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air 

surrounding the equipment rise above 

one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 

the space should be evacuated and reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

As provided in clauses SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 

of UL 563, the following markings must be 

attached at the locations provided and 

must be permanent: 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling 

these refrigerants. Special care should be 

taken to avoid contact with the skin since 

these refrigerants, like many refrigerants, 

can cause freeze burns on the skin. 

(a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use 

Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on or 

near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer. 

A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher 

should be kept nearby. Technicians 

should only use spark-proof tools when 

working on refrigerators and freezers with 

these refrigerants. 

(b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near 

the machine compartment. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a 

building. 

(c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All 

Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ 

This marking must be located near the 

machine compartment. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service refrigerators and freezers containing 

these refrigerants. Technicians should 

gain an understanding of minimizing the 

risk of fire and the steps to use flammable 

refrigerants safely. 

(d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be 

provided on the exterior of the refrigeration equipment. 

(e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion 

Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; 

Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all exposed refrigerant tubing. 

All of these markings must be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. 

Room occupants should evacuate the space 

immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. 

If a service port is added then retail food refrigerators and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the 

diameter differs by at least 1⁄16 inch or the 

thread direction is reversed (i.e., righthanded vs. left-handed). These different 

fittings should be permanently affixed to 

the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and 

should not be accessed with an adaptor. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22902 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further information 

The equipment must have red Pantone 

Matching System (PMS) #185 marked 

pipes, hoses, or other devices through 

which the refrigerant passes, to indicate 

the use of a flammable refrigerant. This 

color must be applied at all service ports 

and other parts of the system where service puncturing or other actions creating an 

opening from the refrigerant circuit to the 

atmosphere might be expected and must 

extend a minimum of one (1) inch in both 

directions from such locations. 

Very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment (new only).

Propane (R-290) ........ Acceptable, subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

This refrigerant may be used only in new 

equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant—i.e., this 

refrigerant may not be used as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment. 

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 1910 must be followed, including 

those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and 

1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of 

liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 

(portable fire extinguishers), and 

1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). 

This refrigerant may only be used in equipment that meets all requirements in Supplement SB to UL 471.124 In cases where 

the final rule includes requirements more 

stringent than those of UL 471, the appliance must meet the requirements of the 

final rule in place of the requirements in 

the UL Standard. 

The charge size for the equipment must not 

exceed 150 grams (5.29 ounces) in each 

refrigerant circuit of the very low temperature refrigeration equipment. 

Proper ventilation should be maintained at 

all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants through adherence to good 

manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 

1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air 

surrounding the equipment rise above 

one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 

the space should be evacuated and reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 

of UL 471, the following markings must be 

attached at the locations provided and 

must be permanent: 

(a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use 

Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on or 

near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling 

ethane. Special care should be taken to 

avoid contact with the skin since ethane, 

like many refrigerants, can cause freeze 

burns on the skin. 

A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher 

should be kept nearby. 

(b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near 

the machine compartment. 

(c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All 

Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ 

This marking must be located near the 

machine compartment. 

Technicians should only use spark-proof 

tools when working on equipment with 

flammable refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. Any refrigerant releases should be in a well-ventilated area, such as outside of a building. 

Only technicians specifically trained in 

handling flammable refrigerants should 

service equipment containing ethane. 

Technicians should gain an understanding 

of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps 

to use flammable refrigerants safely. 

(d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be 

provided on the exterior of the refrigeration equipment. 

(e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion 

Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; 

Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all exposed refrigerant tubing. 

All of these markings must be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high.

Room occupants should evacuate the space 

immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. 

If a service port is added then retail food refrigerators and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the 

diameter differs by at least 1⁄16 inch or the 

thread direction is reversed (i.e., righthanded vs. left-handed). These different 

fittings should be permanently affixed to 

the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and 

should not be accessed with an adaptor. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22903 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further information 

The equipment must have red PMS #185 

marked pipes, hoses, or other devices 

through which the refrigerant passes, to 

indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be applied at all 

service ports and other parts of the system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be 

expected and must extend a minimum of 

one (1) inch in both directions from such 

locations. 

Very low temperature equipment using propane may also use another acceptable refrigerant substitute in a separate refrigerant circuit or stage (e.g., one temperature stage with propane and a second 

stage with ethane). 

Water coolers (new 

only).

Propane (R-290) ........ Acceptable, subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after publication of final 

rule]: 

This refrigerant may be used only in new 

equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant—i.e., this 

refrigerant may not be used as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment. 

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 1910 must be followed, including 

those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and 

1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of 

liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 

(portable fire extinguishers), and 

1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). 

This refrigerant may be used only in water 

coolers that meet all requirements listed in 

Supplement SB to UL 399 123 In cases 

where the rule includes requirements 

more stringent than those of the UL 399, 

the appliance must meet the requirements 

of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard. 

The charge size must not exceed 150 

grams (5.29 ounces) per refrigerant circuit 

in the water cooler. 

Proper ventilation should be maintained at 

all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon 

refrigerants through adherence to good 

manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 

1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air 

surrounding the equipment rise above 

one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 

the space should be evacuated and reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

The equipment must have red PMS #185 

marked pipes, hoses, or other devices 

through which the refrigerant passes, to 

indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be applied at all 

service ports and other parts of the system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be 

expected and must extend a minimum of 

one (1) inch in both directions from such 

locations. As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 

to SB6.1.5 of UL 399, the following markings must be attached at the locations 

provided and must be permanent: 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling 

ethane. Special care should be taken to 

avoid contact with the skin since ethane, 

like many refrigerants, can cause freeze 

burns on the skin. 

A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher 

should be kept nearby. 

(a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use 

Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on or 

near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer. 

(b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near 

the machine compartment. 

Technicians should only use spark-proof 

tools when working on equipment with 

flammable refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a 

building. Only technicians specifically 

trained in handling flammable refrigerants 

should service equipment containing ethane. Technicians should gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and 

the steps to use flammable refrigerants 

safely. 

(c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All 

Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ 

This marking must be located near the 

machine compartment. 

Room occupants should evacuate the space 

immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22904 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further information 

(d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be 

provided on the exterior of the refrigeration equipment. 

(e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion 

Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; 

Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all exposed refrigerant tubing. 

If a service port is added then retail food refrigerators and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non-flammable 

refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the 

diameter differs by at least 1⁄16 inch or the 

thread direction is reversed (i.e., righthanded vs. left-handed). These different 

fittings should be permanently affixed to 

the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and 

should not be accessed with an adaptor. 

1The Director of the Federal Register approves the materials in these footnotes for incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 

51 You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket is 202– 

566–1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 2 Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; orders@comm-2000.com;: 1–888–853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada 

(other countries dial +1–415–352–2168); http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. 3 UL 399. Standard for Drinking-Water Coolers. 7th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the 

Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August 22, 2008. 4 UL 471. Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 24, 2010. 5 UL 563. Standard for Ice Makers. 8th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. July 31, 2009. 

REFRIGERANTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Centrifugal chillers 

(new only).

HFC-134a ............. Acceptable subject 

to narrowed use 

limits.

Acceptable after January 1, 2024, 

only in military marine vessels 

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: 

• Application 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 

qualified and projected time for 

switching. 

Centrifugal chillers 

(new only).

HFC-134a and R404A.Acceptable subject 

to narrowed use 

limits.

Acceptable after January 1, 2024, 

only inhuman-rated spacecraft and 

related support equipment 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: 

• Application 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 

qualified and projected time for 

switching. 

Positive displacement chillers 

(new only).

HFC-134a ............. Acceptable subject 

to narrowed use 

limits.

Acceptable after January 1, 2024, 

only in military marine vessels 

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: 

• Application in which the substitute is needed; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22905 

REFRIGERANTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

• 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 

qualified and projected time for 

switching. 

Positive displacement chillers 

(new only).

HFC-134a and R404A.Acceptable subject 

to narrowed use 

limits.

Acceptable after January 1, 2024, 

only inhuman-rated spacecraft and 

related support equipment 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: 

• Application 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 

qualified and projected time for 

switching. 

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information 

Centrifugal chillers 

(new only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, 

HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/134a/600a 

(28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/

1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, 

R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), 

and THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2024 except where allowed 

under a narrowed 

use limit.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 9,810. Other alternatives will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

Centrifugal chillers 

(new only).

Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A .................... Unacceptable as of 

[date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule].

These refrigerants are highly photochemically 

reactive in the lower atmosphere and may 

deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Cold storage warehouses (new only).HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/

42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, 

R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, 

R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2023.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 2,090 to 3,990. Other alternatives will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

Cold storage warehouses (new only).Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A .................... Unacceptable as of 

[date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule].

These refrigerants are highly photochemically 

reactive in the lower atmosphere and may 

deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Household refrigerators 

and freezers (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-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, 

R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, 

RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2021.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Other alternatives 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 PROPOSALS3

22906 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued 

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information 

Positive displacement 

chillers (new only).

FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, 

KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 

R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, 

RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and 

THR-03.

Unacceptable as of 

January 1, 2024 except where allowed 

under a narrowed 

use limit.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 900 to 3,985. Other alternatives will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

Positive displacement 

chillers (new only).

Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A .................... Unacceptable as of 

[date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule].

These refrigerants are highly photochemically 

reactive in the lower atmosphere and may 

deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps (new only).

Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A .................... Unacceptable as of 

[date 30 days after 

publication of a final 

rule].

These refrigerants are highly photochemically 

reactive in the lower atmosphere and may 

deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with 

lower overall risk to human health and the 

environment. 

Residential and light 

commercial air conditioning—unitary split 

AC systems and heat 

pumps (retrofit only).

All refrigerants identified as flammability 

Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34- 

2013.123

All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. This includes, but is not limited to, refrigerant products sold under the 

names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze EF-22a, EF-22a, 

Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, 

Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a. 

Unacceptable as of 

[date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule].

These refrigerants are highly flammable and 

present a flammability risk when used in 

equipment designed for nonflammable refrigerants. Other alternatives are available 

for this end-use with lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment. 

Retail food refrigeration 

(refrigerated food 

processing and dispensing equipment) 

(new only).

HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a 

(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, 

R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R422B, 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, 2021.

These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 

approximately 1,770 to 3,990. Other alternatives will be available for this end-use 

with lower overall risk to human health and 

the environment by the status change date. 

1The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC or at 

the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to this standard, the telephone number of EPA’s Air 

and Radiation Docket is 202–566–1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 2American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; 1–800– 

527–4723 in the U.S. or Canada; http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=. 3ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013: Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, November 2013. 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Rigid PU: Spray 

foam—high-pressure two-component.

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent 

HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends 

of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent 

HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC365mfc; and 

Formacel TI.

Acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2025, only in military or spaceand aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have been made 

to ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible due to performance or 

safety requirements.

Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured with these substitutes on or before 

January 1, 2025, may be used after that 

date. 

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 PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22907 

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

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information 

Rigid PU: Spray 

foam—low-pressure 

two-component.

HFC-134a, HFC245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of 

HFC-365mfc with at 

least four percent 

HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends 

of HFC-365mfc with 

seven to 13 percent 

HFC-227ea and the 

remainder HFC365mfc; and 

Formacel TI.

Acceptable subject to 

narrowed use limits.

Acceptable from January 1, 2021, until January 1, 2025, only in military or spaceand aeronautics-related applications 

where reasonable efforts have been made 

to ascertain that other alternatives are not 

technically feasible due to performance or 

safety requirements.

Closed cell foam products and products 

containing closed cell foams manufactured with these substitutes on or before 

January 1, 2025, may be used after that 

date. 

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. 

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information 

Flexible PU .............. Methylene chloride ............................... Unacceptable as of [date 30 days after 

publication of final rule].

Methylene chloride is a carcinogen 

and may present a toxicity risk. 

Other alternatives are available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment. 

Integral Skin PU ...... Methylene chloride ............................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017 ... Methylene chloride is a carcinogen 

and may present a toxicity risk. 

Other alternatives are available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment. 

Polyolefin ................. Methylene chloride ............................... Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 ...

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams 

manufactured with this substitute on 

or before January 1, 2020, may be 

used after that date. 

Methylene chloride is a carcinogen 

and may present a toxicity risk. 

Other alternatives are available for 

this end-use with lower overall risk 

to human health and the environment. 

Rigid PU: Spray 

foam—one component foam 

sealants.

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with 

at least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea 

and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and 

Formacel TI.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. ..

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams 

manufactured with these substitutes 

on or before January 1, 2020, may 

be used after that date. 

These foam blowing agents have 

GWPs ranging from higher than 730 

to approximately 1,500. Other alternatives will be available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment by the 

status change date. 

Rigid PU: Spray 

foam—high-pressure two-component.

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with 

at least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea 

and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and 

Formacel TI.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020, 

except where allowed under a narrowed use limit.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams 

manufactured with these substitutes 

on or before January 1, 2020, may 

be used after that date. 

These foam blowing agents have 

GWPs ranging from higher than 730 

to approximately 1,500. Other alternatives will be available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment by the 

status change date. 

Rigid PU: Spray 

foam—low-pressure two-component.

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends 

thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with 

at least four percent HFC-245fa, and 

commercial blends of HFC-365mfc 

with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea 

and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and 

Formacel TI.

Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021, 

except where allowed under a narrowed use limit.

Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams 

manufactured with these substitutes 

on or before January 1, 2020, may 

be used after that date. 

These foam blowing agents have 

GWPs ranging from higher than 730 

to approximately 1,500. Other alternatives will be available for this enduse with lower overall risk to human 

health and the environment by the 

status change date. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Streaming .......................... 2-BTP .............................. Acceptable, subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule], acceptable only 

for use in handheld extinguishers in aircraft.

This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 

0.23–0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days. 

This agent is subject to requirements contained in 

a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 

5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA 

section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule 

(SNUR). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

22908 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

For establishments manufacturing, installing and 

maintaining handheld extinguishers using this 

agent: 

(1) Use of this agent should be used in accordance 

with the latest edition of NFPA Standard 10 for 

Portable Fire Extinguishers; 

(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) 

should be immediately removed and exposed to 

fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should 

seek medical attention; 

(3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be 

available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) 

should immediately flush the eyes, including 

under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to 

a non-contaminated area. 

Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated 

clothing and footwear to avoid irritation, and 

medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists; 

(4) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, 

the person(s) should consult a physician immediately; 

(5) Manufacturing space should be equipped with 

specialized engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system and low-lying 

source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential 

occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace atmosphere should be 

conducted; 

(6) Employees responsible for chemical processing 

should wear the appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective 

work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection 

in case of accidental release or insufficient ventilation; 

(7) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in 

accordance with good industrial hygiene practices; and 

(8) Training for safe handling procedures should be 

provided to all employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or extinguishing 

units filled with the agent. 

(9) 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing 

agent in handheld extinguishers in aircraft should 

be in accordance with UL 711, Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance 

Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/

FAA/AR–01/37), with regard to the size and number of extinguishers depending on the size of aircraft. 

(10) 2-BTP handheld extinguishers should follow 

required minimum room volumes established by 

UL 2129, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, when discharged into a confined space. 

Total flooding .................... 2-BTP .............................. Acceptable, subject to 

use conditions.

As of [date 30 days after 

publication of final 

rule], acceptable only 

for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary 

power units on aircraft.

This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 

0.23–0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days. This agent is subject to 

requirements contained in a TSCA section 5(e) 

Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR. 

For establishments manufacturing, installing, and 

servicing engine nacelles and auxiliary power 

units on aircraft using this agent: 

(1) This agent should be used in accordance with 

the safety guidelines in the latest edition of the 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 

Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems; 

(2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) 

should be immediately removed and exposed to 

fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should 

seek medical attention; 

(3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be 

available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) 

should immediately flush the eyes, including 

under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to 

a non-contaminated area. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 74 / Monday, April 18, 2016 / Proposed Rules 22909 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated 

clothing and footwear to avoid irritation, and 

medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists; 

(4) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, 

the person(s) should consult a physician immediately; 

(5) Manufacturing space should be equipped with 

specialized engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system and low-lying 

source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential 

occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace atmosphere should be 

conducted; 

(6) Employees responsible for chemical processing 

should wear the appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective 

work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection 

in case of accidental release or insufficient ventilation; 

(7) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in 

accordance with good industrial hygiene practices; 

(8) Training for safe handling procedures should be 

provided to all employees that would be likely to 

handle containers of the agent or extinguishing 

units filled with the agent; 

(9) Safety features that are typical of total flooding 

systems such as pre-discharge alarms, time 

delays, and system abort switches should be 

provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA standards; use of this agent 

should also conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and 1910.162. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Total flooding ............... PFCs (C3F8 and 

C4F10).

Unacceptable as of [date one year after publication of final rule].

Total flooding systems manufactured using 

these fire suppressants on or before [date 

one year after publication of final rule] may 

be used after that date. 

These fire suppressants have GWPs ranging 

from 8,830 to 8,860. Other alternatives will 

be available for this end-use with lower 

overall risk to human health and the environment by the status change date. 

[FR Doc. 2016–08163 Filed 4–15–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3