### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 1 of 143 **EO12866_ SNAP Status Change 2060**  **- AS18**  **NPRM_2 0140408**  6560 - 50 - P **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82**  **[EPA –** **HQ –**  **OAR**

**– 201**  **4 –**  **0198 ;**  **FRL -** **XXXX -** **X] RIN 2060**  **- AS18**  **Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Sign**  **ificant New Alternatives Policy Program**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION:** Notice of proposed rulemaking. **SUMMARY:** Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ’s Significant New Alternatives Policy

program, this action proposes to change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously

listed as acceptable , based on information showing that o ther substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk overall to human health and/or the environment. Specificall y, this action proposes to modify the lis tings for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various end - use s in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also proposes use conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human health and

/or the environment. T his action also proposes to change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 2 of 143 **DATES:** Comments must be received on or before [ **INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER** **]** . Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on [ **INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER** **]** . If a hearing is held, it will take place on or about [ **INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER** **]** in Washington, DC and further information will be provided on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap . **ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No . EPA

–HQ

–OAR

–201 4

– 0198 , by one of the following methods:

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

 E - mail: A - And - R - Docket@epa.gov.

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency , Mail C ode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

–OAR

–201 4

–0198 .  Hand Delivery : EPA Docket C enter, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

–OAR

– 201 4

–0198 . Such deliveries are onl y accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for del iveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

–OAR

–201 4

–0198 . EPA’s policy is th at all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including an y personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 3 of 143 In formation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e - mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “ anony mous access ” sy stem, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e - mail comment directl y to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov , yo ur e - mail address will be automati cally captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body

of your comm ent and with any disk or CD

–ROM you submit. I f EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any

form of encry

ption, and be free of any

defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I .B. of the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**  section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Certain other material, such as cop yri ghted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only

in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW. Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

– 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 4 of 143 Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Rebecca von dem Hagen , Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 343

– 9445 ; fax number (202) 343

–2338, e - mail address: vondemhagen.rebecca @epa.gov . Notices and rulemakings under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program are available on EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs . **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tabl**  **e of Contents** I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action appl y to me? C. What should Iconsider as Iprepare m y comments for EPA? D. What acron ym s 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 s ection 612? C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP p rogram? E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluati ng substitutes under the SNAP p rogram? F. How are SNAP determinations updated? G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a determination? H. Where can I get additio nal information about the SNAP p rogram? III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed decision to modify

prior SNAP determinations? IV . What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for substitutes with a high global warming potential? A. Summary

of petitions B. How tod ay's action relates to petitions V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs ? A. A erosols 1. Background 2. Aerosols today 3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols? a. What other substitutes are available? i. Consumer aerosols ii. Technical aerosols

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 5 of 143 iii. Medical aerosols b. What other approaches is EPA considering? c. When would the modified listings apply? d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment? B. M otor vehicle air conditioning for newl y manufactured light - duty motor vehicles 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC - 134 and use of ref rigerant blends for MVAC sy stems f or newl y manufactured light - duty motor vehicle s ? 3. Will this action affect EPA’s light - duty vehicle rule? C. R etail food refrigeration and vending machines 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket sy stems)? a. New condensing units and supermarket s ys tems b. Retrofit condensing units and supermarket s ys tems 3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand - alone e quipment ? a. New stand - alone equipment b. R etrofit stand - alone equipment 4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines? a. New vending machines b. Retrofit vending machines 5. When would the listings change? 6. Applicability

to service of existing equipment 7. Energy

efficiency

consideration 8. What other options is EPA considering ? a. New and retrofit condensing units and supermarket sy stems b. New stand - alone equipment and vending machines c. Retrofit stand - alone equipment and vending machines 9. Status of R - 404A and R - 507A in other end - use s D. Foam blowing a gent s 1. Background 2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents? a. What other foam blowing agents are being used? b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam blowing agents? i. Proposed unacceptable agents ii. Rigid poly

urethane appliance foam iii. Flexible poly

urethane iv. Rigid poly

urethane spray foam v. Rigid poly

urethane use in commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels vi. Rigid poly

urethane slabstock and other foam vii. Rigid poly

urethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock viii. Polystyr ene extruded sheet ix. Polystyr ene extruded boardstock and billet

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 6 of 143 x. Integral skin poly urethane xi. Polyolefin foam xii. Phenolic insulation boardstock and bunstock c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing foams? d. When would the listings change? e. Exceptions for mil itary or space - and aeronautics - related applications f. Summary VI . What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for three HCFCs and in which end - uses ? B. Why

is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs? 1. Alignment of SNAP listings for three HCFCs with regulations implementing CAA s ection s 605 and 610 2. Anticipated effects VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports? VIII. Statutory

and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory

Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination w ith Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations IX . References **I. General Information**  **A. Executive Summary**  This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of certain substitutes **1** previously

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

**1** T he terms “substitutes” and “alternatives” are used interchangeably.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 7 of 143 EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain hydrofluorocarbon s ( HFC s ) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and air conditi oning and refrigerant end - use s where other alternatives are available or potentiall y available that pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particula r end - use . T his action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and end - use s. EPA is also not proposing that , for any

specific sector, the onl y acceptable substitutes are HFC - free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g ., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins ( HFOs) ) and non - fluorinated (e.g., h ydrocarbons (HC s ) , carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) ) substitutes are potential ly acceptable . Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act ( CAA ) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. EPA is proposing to modify the following listin gs by end - use : 1) For aerosol propell ants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 125 as unacceptable;

 HFC - 134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use onl y in specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols) ; and

 HFC - 227ea as acceptable , subject to use conditions, allowing its use onl y in metered dose inhalers . 2) For motor vehicle air conditioning sy stems in newly manufactured light - duty

veh icles, we are proposing to list

 HFC - 134a as unacceptable starting with model ye ar (MY) 2021 ; and

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 8 of 143  The refrigerant blends SP34E, R - 426A (also known as RS - 24) , R - 416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FR IGC FR12) , R - 406A, R - 414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG - X4), R - 414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG - HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017 . 3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand - alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket sy stems , and indirect supermarket s ys tems) and new and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 T he HFC blends R - 507A and R - 404A as unacceptable . 4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including direct supermarket sy stems and indirect supermarket s ys tems), we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 227ea, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 428A, and R - 434A as unacceptabl e. 5) For new stand - alone retail food refrigeration and new vending machines, we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable. 6) For all foam blowing end - uses except spray foam as specified below , we are proposing to list , as of January

1, 2017

 HFC - 134a and blends thereof as unacceptable ;  HFC - 143a, HFC - 245fa and HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z - 6 as unacceptable in al l foam blowing end - uses where they

are currentl y listed as acceptable, except for spray foam applications ; and

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 9 of 143  The HFC blend Formacel TIas unacceptable in all foam blowing end - uses where it is currently

listed as acceptable. In general, EPA is proposing m odifications to the listings based on the SNAP program’s comparative risk framework. The sections that follow provide the anal ys es supporting the proposed listing modifications and the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of these substitutes. Inaddition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on this rule including market characteri zations, anal ys es of costs associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with the transition to alternatives, and potential small business impacts . **2** , **3** , **4** , **5** , **6** , **7** , **8** The emissions reductions from this proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are available in the docket for commenters to review. EPA is planning to prepare a consolidated analy sis document. EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for hy drochlorofluorocarbon ( HCFC ) - 141b, HCFC - 142b, and HCFC - 22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks . These modifications reflect the existing regulations promulgated under CAA sections 605(a) and 610 (d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and **2** ICF, 2014 a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. **3** ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. **4** ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration I ndustry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. **5** ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014. **6** ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High GWP Alternatives. April, 2014. **7** EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. **8** ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High - GWP Alternatives. June 2014.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 10 of 143 C . The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal. **B. Does this action apply to me?**  Potential entities that may be affected b y this proposed rule include: TABLE 1

—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTI TI ES BY NORTH AMERI CAN IN DUSTRIAL CLA SSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAI CS) CODE Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors Industry 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing Industry 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing Industry 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing Industry 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing Industry 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods Industry 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing Industry 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing Industry 326140 Polystyrene F oam P roduct M anufacturing Industry 326150 Urethane and O ther F oam P roduct ( e xcept P olystyrene) M anufacturing Industry 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Industry 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing Industry 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Industry 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing Retail 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers Retail 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Retail 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (e xcept Convenience) Stores Retail 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Retail 445120 Convenience Stores Retail 44521 Meat Markets Retail 44522 Fish and S eafood Markets Retail 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets Retail 445291 Baked Goods Stores Retail 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores Retail 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores Retail 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Retail 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores Retail 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores Retail 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Super center s

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 11 of 143 Retail 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores Services 72111 Hotels (e xcept Casino Hotels) and Motels Services 72112 Casino Hotels Retail 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Retail 722513 Limited - Service Restaurants Retail 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets Retail 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated b y this action. If you have an y questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity , consult the person li sted in the above section, [ **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**  **] .**  **C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?**  1. Submitting Confidential Bus iness Information (CBI) Do not submit confidential information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e - mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD - ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD - ROM as CBI and then identify

electronically

within the disk or CD - ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the pub lic docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR p art 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

 Id entify

the rulemaking by

docket number and other identi fying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 12 of 143  Follow directions

–The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by

referencing a CFR part or section number.

 Explain why

you agree or disagree; sugg est alternatives and substitute language for yo ur requested changes.

 Describe an y assumptions and provide an y technical information and/or data that yo u used.

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

 Provide specific examp les to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

 Explain your views as clearl y as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

 Make sure to submit your comments by th e comment period deadline. **D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?**  Below is a list of acron yms and abbreviations used in the preamble of this document : ACGIH

— American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygi enists AIHA

—American Industrial Hygiene Association CAA

—Clean Air Act CAS Reg. No.

—Chemical Abstracts Service Registry I dentification Number CBI

—Confidential B usiness Information CFC

—C hlorofluorocarbon CFR

—Code of Federal Regulations CH 4—Methane CO2—C arbon dioxide

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 13 of 143 CO2 eq—C arbon dioxide equivalent DOE

— United States Department of Energy EIA

—Environmental Investigation Agency- US EO

—Executive O rder EPA

— United States Environmental Protection Agency EU

—European Union FDA

— United States Food and Drug Administration FR

—Federal Register GHG

—Greenhouse gas Gt

—G igaton GW P

—G lobal warming potential HC

—Hydrocarbon HCFC

—H ydrochlorofluorocarbon HFC

—H ydrofluorocarbon HFO

—H ydrofluoroolefin ICF

—IC F International, Inc. ICR

—In formation c ollection request IGSD

—Institute for Govern ance and Sustainable Development IPCC

—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MDI

— metered dose inhaler MVAC

—M otor vehicle air conditioning N 2— Nitrogen NAICS

— North American Industrial Classification Sy stem

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 14 of 143 NIOSH

— United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NRDC

— Natural Resources Defense Council NTTAA

— National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OEM

—O riginal equipment manufacturer ODP

—O zone depletion potential ODS

—O zone - depleting substance OMB

— United States Office of Management and Budget OSHA

— United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL

—P ermissible exposure limit PFC

—P erfluorocarbons ppm —P arts per million PRA

—Paperwork Reduction Act REL

—Recomm ended exposure limit RFA

—Regulatory

Flexibility

Act SF 6-- S ulfur hexafluoride SNAP

— Significant New Alternatives Policy SRES

— Special Report on Emissions Scenarios TLV

—Threshold limit value TW A

—Time - weighted average UMRA

— Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VOC

—Volatile o rganic c ompounds WEEL - Workplace Environmental Exposure L imit **II. How does the SNAP program work?** 

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 15 of 143 **A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program?**  Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone - depleting substances. This program is known as the Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are: 1. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or cla ss II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currentl y or potentiall y 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 publis h a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

3. Petition Process Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from , the lists published in accordance with secti on 612(c). The Agency has 90 day s to grant or deny

a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 16 of 143 4. 90 - day

Notification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a che mical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency

not less than 90 day s 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 provi de 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 Iand 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 altern ative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class Iand II substances. **B. What are**  **EP A’s regulations implementing**  **CAA s**  **ection 612?** On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA’ s first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the following : refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion . These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically

consumed the largest volumes of ozone - depleting substances (ODS). **C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?** 

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 17 of 143 Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 day s before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement ty

pically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce, 9 it may also appl y to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end - use rs 10 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90 - day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 day s 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 subje ct to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. 11 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable with out use conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant end - use s within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used . Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may

be used only

in accordance with those restrictions. Subs titutes that are found 9 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. 10 As de fined at 40 CFR 82.17 2 “end - use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ozone - depleting substance. 11 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submission s for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 18 of 143 to be unacceptable may

not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes. 12 After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable on ly if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the environment are not significantl y greater than other available substitutes . EPA describes such substitutes as “ acceptable subject to use conditi ons. ” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use within an end - use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end - use s or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency

requires a user of a narrowed use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable subs titutes are available for their specific application. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end - use s that are not co nsistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). T he s ection 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

12 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone - depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or pro duct, in consumption by the end - use r, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States. 13 In addition to acceptable commercially available sub stitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 19 of 143 if such a change is justified by new inform ation 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 li mits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibi ted 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 d oes not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent an yone from using a substitute. Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “f urther 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 substi tute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory

requireme nts so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated b y the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other le gal 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 substitute s. In man y instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, available substitutes. The SNAP program’s definition of “potentially available “ is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification proces s, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR §82.172)

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 20 of 143 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 p rogram?**  The seven guiding principles of the SNAP p rogram, elaborated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule and based on section 612, are discussed below.

 Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds compared to available or potentially

available substitutes to the ozone depleting compound s which they are intended to replace. The risk factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well as flammability , toxicity , occupational health and safety , and contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.

 Do not req uire that substitutes be risk free to be found acceptable For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. Where risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other substitutes, EPA may

find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits that would manage the risk.

 Restrict those substitutes that are significantly w orse EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only marginall y greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremel y difficult. The Agency also does not want to i ntercede in the market’ s choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable al l but a few substitutes for each end use . Thus, the Agency

will not list a potential substitute as unacceptable unless EPA determines that the substitute is significantly more harmful to human health or the environment than other available or potentiall y available alternatives.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 21 of 143  Evaluate risks by use C entral 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 significantl y depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk characterizations must be designed to represent differences i n the environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, impl y fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either the environment or to human health.

 Provide the regulated community wit h information as soon as possible The Agency

recognizes the need to provide the regulated community with information on the acceptability

of various substitutes as soon as possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable, acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in the **Federal Register** . In addition, we maintain lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our website, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap .  D o not endorse products manufactured by specific companies The Agency

does not issue company- specific product endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its anal ys is on data received on individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable list based on that anal ys is does not represent an endorsement of th at company’ s products.

 Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under ot her sections of the CAA or other statutes that address any potential environmental impacts that may

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 22 of 143 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 chemi cals 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 evaluati**  **ng substitu**  **t es**  **under the SNAP p**  **rogram?** EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable . These criteria, which can be found at §82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and environmental impacts, ecosy stem risks, consumer risks , flammability , and cost and availability

of the substitute . To enable EPA to assess these criteria, we require submitters to include various information including ozone depletion potential ( ODP ) , global warming potential ( GWP ) , toxicity , flammability , an d the potenti al for human exposure. When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates the se criteria in the following groupings:

 Atmospheric effects - The SNAP program evaluates the potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100 - ye ar integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects.

 Exposure assessments - The SNAP program uses e xposure assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on pers onal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure assessments may be conducted for many

ty pes of releases including: 1) Releases in the workplace and in homes ;

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 23 of 143 2) Releases to ambient air and surface water ; 3) Releases from the management of solid wastes .  Toxicity data - The SNAP program uses t oxicity data to assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitutes. We use broad health - based criteria such as: 1) Permissible Exposure L imits (PEL s) for occupational exposure; 2) Inh alation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non - carcinogenic effects on the general population; 3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the general population. When considering risks in the workplace, i f OSHA has not issued a PEL for a c ompound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure L imits from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health , Workplace Environmental Exposure L imits (WEEL s) set by the American Industrial Hygiene Association , or Threshold Limit Values set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not already established, then EPA derives th ese values following the Agency ’ s peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure infor mation 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 f lamma bility as a safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using data on: 1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability /combustibility classifications);

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 24 of 143 2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components; 3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted b y independent laboratories; and 4) In formation on flammability risk mitigation techniques.

 Other environmental impacts - The SNAP program also examines other potential environmental impacts such a s ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely

to be discharged to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act subtitle C regulations . Over the past twenty

years, the menu of substi tutes 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 significantl y greater risk to human health and the environment than other avai lable substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed b y our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes . Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed b y SNAP has changed , and , at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accuratel y assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. **F. How are SNAP**  **determinations updated?** Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 25 of 143 substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptabl e substitutes . That provision allows any person to petition the A dministrator to add a substance to the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a substance from either list. The second means is through the notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90 - day

notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA for producers of substitutes to class Isubstances for new uses and , in all other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 61 2(c). Finally , we interpret the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists. Indetermining whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other available substitutes that pose a lower risk to human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing of a substitute we consider new data not considered at the time of our original listi ng decision, including information on new substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed. **G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a determination?**  As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the original SNAP rulemaking published in the **Federal Register** on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are other substitutes currently

or potentially

available that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition to comparing the human health and environmental effects of other available or potentiall y available substitutes for the same end - use s , we also compare substitutes to the ozone - depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 26 of 143 that Deplete the Ozone Layer ( Montreal Protocol ) and under the CAA . The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers in i ts comparative risk framework. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly

depending on the particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes d ecisions based on the particular end - use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable onl y for limited end - use s or subject to use restrictions . In May 2013 EPA stated: EPA recognizes that during the nearly two - decade long history of the SNAP program, new alternatives and new information about alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, EPA considers new information and improved understanding of the risk factors f or the environment and human health in the context of the available or potentially available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035) It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for consideration was, for many end - use s, somewhat limited. While the SNAP program’s initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few substitutes to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and were only

an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the s ection 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the s ection 605 Use Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP program did not convey

permanence.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 27 of 143 Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 18 rules and 28 notices expanding the menu of options for all SNAP sectors and end - use s. Comparisons today are to a broader range of options

– both chemical and non - chemical

– than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of the program. This varies by sector and b y end - use . In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes , developments over the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global environmental issues. With regards to that information, many

of the substitute - specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone comparative assessments that consider our evolving un derstanding of climate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new element s in our evaluati on framework, but along with all of our review criteria the amount and quality of information has expanded. To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing management of the SNAP program considers new information and improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. EPA previously

has taken several actions revising listing determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable based on information made available to EPA after a listing was issued. For example , o n January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant known b y the trade name MT - 31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and air conditioning end - use s. EPA previously

listed this blend as an acceptable substitute in various end - use s within the refrigeration and air conditioning sect or (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275). Based on new information about the toxicity

of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequentl y removed MT

– 31 from the list of acceptable substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air conditioning end - use s (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861). Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 2007 when EPA

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 28 of 143 listed HCFC

–22 and HCFC

– 142b as unacceptable for use in the foam sector ( March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432) . These HCFCs, which are ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were initially

listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP than the substances they

were replacing and there were no other available substitutes that posed lower risk at the time of EPA’s listing decision . HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end - use s at a time when substitutes were far more limited. Inlight of the expanded availability of alternative substitutes with lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end - use s, and taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed the listing for these HCFCs in these end - use s from acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay

the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use for a limited time to ensure that t hey could adjust their manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes .

**H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP**  **p rogram?**  For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional informat ion on SNAP, refer to EPA’s web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/s nap . For more information on the Agency ’ s process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronolo gy of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html . **III. What actions**  **and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on t**  **his**

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 29 of 143 **proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations?** GWP , along with other criteria , is a factor in the overall evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program . D uring the past two decades , the general science on climate change and the potential contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) suc h as HFCs to climate change have become better understood. O n December 7, 2009 , at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 14 :

 **Endangerment Finding:** the current and projected concentrations of the six key well mixed gre enhouse gases in the atmosphere

— CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 )

— threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

 **Cause or Contribute Finding:** the combined emissions of these well - mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. Like the ODSs they

replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. 15 Though they repres ent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG emissions, their warming impact is very strong because they c an remain trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ ye ars impacting climate change 20,000 times more powerfully than CO 2 , and their emissions are projected to accelerate over the next several decades if left unregulated. In the United States , emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly

than those of any

other GHG s , and globall y the y are increasing 10 - 15%

14 The relevant scientific and technical information summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf 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).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 30 of 143 annually . 16 At that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by

2030. 17 HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. T he atmospheric concentration of HFC - 134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased b y about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC - 143a and HFC - 125 have risen over 13% and 16% per year from 2007 - 2011, respectivel y. 18 , 19 Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6. 4 to 9.9 Gt CO 2 eq in 2050 20 , whi ch is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO 2 eq between 1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011) . By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing b y up to 0.4 W m ‐ 2 . This increase may be as much as one fifth to one - quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO 2 since 2000, according to the IP CC’s Special Report on Emission s Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011) . To appreciate the significance of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of al l GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO 2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s highest CO 2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO 2 emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest CO 2 emissions pathway . **21** , **22** Additional information concerning the peer -

16 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme . 17 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. 18 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. 19 NOAA data at ft

p://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/ . 20 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949

– 10954. **21** HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp **22** IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J. - F. Lamarque, H. Lia o 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. B oschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 31 of 143 reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this rulemaking. **IV. What petitions**  **has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for**  **substitutes with a high global warmin**  **g potential ?**  **A. Summary of**  **p etitions**  EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain acceptability

listings of HFC - 134a and HFC - 134a blends. The first petition was submitted on May 7, 2010 , by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation Agency- US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC - 134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS and move it to the list of unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequentl y clarified that they

were requesting this change for the use of HFC - 134a in new passenger cars and light - duty trucks, non - medical aerosols , and for certain ref rigeration and foam blowing end use s. In support of their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed that these other substitutes present much lower risks to human health and environment than HFC - 134a. On February

14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in new passenger cars and light - duty vehicles and determined it was incomplete for other uses of HFC - 134a. EPA noted in its response that , at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice - and - comment rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition, noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many factors, including, but not limited to, the time frame for introduction of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 32 of 143 potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate substitutes . This proposed rule responds to the aspect of that pet ition that we found complete. On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program’s evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC - 134a and HFC - 134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses where EPA found CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential under s ection 610 of th e Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for moving HFC - 134a and HFC - 134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes be based on the “most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of the” acceptable substitutes for each use. The p etitioner noted that initial approvals of HFC - 134a for a number of end - use s occurred in the 1990s and were based on the assessment made then that 1) HFC - 134a does not contribute to ozone depletion; 2) HFC - 134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime were close to those of other substitutes that had been determined to be acceptable for the end - use s; and 3) HFC - 134a is not flammable , and its toxicity is low. 23 The petitioner stated that the anal ysis used in the listing decisions may

have been appropriate in the 1990s b ut was no longer reflected accuratel y given the range of other available or potentiall y available substitutes at present . In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the petitioner requested that the s ection 610 Nonessential Products Ban be exte nded to HFC - 134a and HFC - 134a blends for aerosols and pressurized dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string, artificial snow, specialty paints and excrement “poop” freeze); noise horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event noise horns, personal safety noise horns, wall - mounted industrial noise horns used as alarms in 23 See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg. at 31,097.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 33 of 143 factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns used as alarms in homes and c ars); foam and refrigerants in new domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand - alone coolers and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic, photographic , and other equipment. On Augu st 7, 2012 , EPA notified the petitioner that this petition was incomplete . EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA ’s action in this proposal may be considered respons ive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is proposing to change the listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses , and proposing to place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses . A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012 , by NRDC, EIA and IGSD . T hey requested that EPA: 1) Remove HFC

- 134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for CFC - 12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand - alone retail food refrigerators and freezers; 2) Restrict the sales of SNAP- listed refrigerants to all except certified technicians with access to service tools required under existing EPA regulations; 3) Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of transition from obsolete h igh - GW P HFCs to next-generation alternatives and substitutes ; 4) R emove, in addition to HFC - 134a, all other refrigerants with 100 - year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable substitutes list for household refrigerators and freezers and stand - alone retail food refrigerators and freezers. On August 7, 2013 , EPA found this petition to be in complete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA ’s action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC - 134a from

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 34 of 143 acceptable to unacceptable for new stand - alone retail food refrigerators and freezers, as well as changing the listing of a numbe r of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit stand - alone retail food refrigerators and freezers . **B. How today's action relates to**  **petitions** This action primarily recognizes a call in the President’s Climate Action Plan announced June 2013: To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions...Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low - emissions technology by identifying and approving climate - friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. The Climate Action Plan also states “to reduce emission s of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.” This propos ed rule is part of our domestic commitment to take action now and , by doing so , also supporting efforts to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past f ive ye ars, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of over 9 0 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United States, the European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions that will promote the uptake of low - GWP alternatives and reduce use and emissions of high - GWP HFCs. T his proposal responds to the President’s Climate Action Plan and also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions referred to above . First, this action responds to the one aspect of the three petitions that EPA found complete , namel y petitioners ’ request that EPA change the listing

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 35 of 143 of HFC - 134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new MVACs. (See section V.B. in today ’s notice.) While EPA found all remaining issues in the three petitions in complete with respect to the other end - use s, EPA has independ entl y acquired sufficient information to address certain other requests made b y the petitioners regarding listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specificall y, b ased on our review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration sectors, we are proposing to revis e the listing s for a number of substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions , or unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today ’s notice.) These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or potentially

available sub stitutes in those end

– uses and pose significantl y greater risk overall to human health and the environment . EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end - use. This action d oes not propose that any specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end - uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the onl y acceptable substitutes are HFC - free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs and non - flu orinated (e.g., HCs, CO 2 ) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications, and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes in specific sectors and end - uses. EPA recentl y issued a proposed rule [I NSERT DATE OF LOW GWP RULE] that would list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of refrigeration and air- conditioning alternatives that have been submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. Th at rule would enhance the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related end - uses b y proposin g to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to use conditions.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 36 of 143 As noted previousl y, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400 alternatives. This level of development work serves as a clear demonstration of the efforts of industry to commerciali ze alternatives that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide range of consumers. Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated community on the SNAP related aspects of the President’s Climate Action Plan, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of alternatives. Unfortunately , some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its chemical and end - use specific consideration, it s multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend to militate against some measures that could provide more certainty , such as bright line cut offs. That being said we do believe that the proposals we are making today , and future proposals w e may make, may

provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria in individual end - use s. In addition, we remain committed to continuing our outreach efforts and to sharing our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future a ctions w e might consider. Finally , and a s it relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under the SNAP program, the Agency

continues to welcome comments and ideas on measures we might consider within the SNAP context to provide greater certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP regulated industrial sectors. **V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?**  EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain HFCs and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and ai r conditioning and refrigerant end - use s where other alternatives are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific HFC or

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 37 of 143 HFC blend and the particular end - use . T his action does not propose that an y specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and end - use s. EPA is also not proposing that , for an y specific sector, the onl y acceptable substitutes are HFC - free. EPA recognizes that both fluorin ated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non - fluorinated (e.g., HC s , CO 2 ) substitutes are potential ly acceptable . Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and CAA Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes. EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end - use : 1) For aerosol propell ants, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 125 as unacceptable;

 HFC - 134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use onl y in specific types of technical and medical aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in consumer aerosols); and

 HFC - 227ea as acceptable , subject to use conditions, allowing its use onl y in metered dose inhalers . 2) For motor vehicle air conditioning sy stems in newly manufactured light - duty

veh icles, we are proposing to list

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

 The refrigerant blends SP34E, R - 426A (also known as RS - 24) , R - 416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FR IGC FR12) , R - 406A, R - 414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG - X4), R - 414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG - HP) as unacceptable starting with MY 2017 .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 38 of 143 3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including stand - alone equipment, cond ensing units, direct supermarket sy stems , and indirect supermarket s ys tems) and new and retrofit vending machines, we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 T he HFC blends R - 507A and R - 404A as unacceptable . 4) For new and retrofit retail food refrige ration (including direct supermarket sy stems and indirect supermarket s ys tems), we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 227ea, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 428A, and R - 434A as unacceptable. 5) For new stand - alone retail food refrig eration and new vending machines, we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2016

 HFC - 134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as unacceptable. 6) For all foam blowing end - uses , we are proposing to list , as of January 1, 2017

 HFC - 134a and blends thereof as unacceptable ;  HFC - 143a, HFC - 245fa and HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z - 6 as unacceptable in all foam blowing end - uses where they

are currentl y listed as acceptable, except for spray foam applications ; and

 The HFC blend Formacel TIas unacceptable in all foam blowing end - uses where it is currently

listed as acceptable. In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP listings are based on information concerning the availability of alternativ es with lower overall risk to human health

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 39 of 143 and the environment for the end - uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed dates. As noted in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act discussion in section IX of this preamble, EPA would like information on technical challenges that may exist. EPA is particularl y interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that several of the end - uses could be broken down further. EPA could consider adopt ing temporary narrowed use limits for a specific application of an end use if the Agency

determined that substitutes would be available for all but that specific application as of a particular date. For other applications in that end - use, the rule would list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While the temporary narrowed use limit was in place, onl y persons using a substitute in the end - use for that specific application would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 C FR 82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to comply with the requirement to anal yz e and document that there are no other alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end - use. To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed u se limit for a specific application of an end - use in the final rule, commenters should explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific application of that end - use and for what period of time. In determining whether to modify the li sting 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 Assessme nt Panel that supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings,

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 40 of 143 presentations and reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section IX of today ’s notice. **A. Aerosols**  **1. Background**  The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end - uses: propellants and solvents. Aerosols ty

pically use a liquefied or compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder form. In the case of duster spray s used to blow dust and co ntaminants off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. Historically , a variety of propell ants and solvents have been available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., CO 2 , N 2 , N 2 O, compressed air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. CFCs were excell ent propellants because of their ability to produce a fine spray , their non flammability , their ability to be stored under low pressure, and their low reactivity with other ingredients. In 1978, in response to evidence regarding depletion of the earth’s oz one layer, the United States banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or solvent uses. For example, CFC - 113 and methyl chloroform continued to be used as solvents in aerosols and HCFCs continued to be used. Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were reformulated or replaced with a variety

of alternatives, including not - in - kind substitutes, such as pump spray s or solid and roll - on deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs, compressed gas es, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are controlled substances under

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 41 of 143 the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 605(b) - (c) and use restrictions under section 605(a). In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610’s Congressionally mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of certain non essential products containing ozone - depleting substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). All aerosol products and pressurized dispensers containing, or manufactured with, CFCs and HCFCs

-- except those specifically exempted by

the regulations -- are banned from sale and distribution in interstate commerce in the United States. As a result of the Nonessential Products Ban, most aerosol products have been using low - GWP alternatives with no ozone depletion potential since the earl y 1990s.

**2. Aerosols today**  Following the 1994 ban on the sale and distribution of aerosols using HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced with a range of alternatives including HFCs (e.g., HFC - 134a, HFC 152a), HCs, compressed gases, and not - in - kind alternatives. HCFC solvents were replaced by HFC - 43 - 10mee, HFC - 365mfc, HFC - 245fa, HCs, oxygenated organic compounds, hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and trans - dichloroeth ylene (typicall y blended with an HFC or HFE to reduce flammability

of the formulation). Other acceptable low - GWP fluorinated compounds include HFOs. HFO - 1234ze(E) is in use and under development for use in the aerosol indu stry as a propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued pursuant to CAA section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC - 22 and HCFC - 142b for manufacturing aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs in aerosol products (e.g., HCFC - 225ca/cb), as well as other provisions related to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78072).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 42 of 143 The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol p roducts in the following three categories: 1) consumer aerosols, 2) technical aerosols, and 3) medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols includes products for personal and household use. Examples include personal care products, such as: cosmetics, hairspray , body sprays, and deodorants; automotive products such as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake cleaners ; noise horns and safety horns; animal repellants; s pray

adhesives wi th various applications; household cleaning products; hand - held spray paint cans; eyeglass and key board dusters; consumer freeze spray s (e.g. chewing gum or excrement removal); air fresheners; food dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial snow, plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers). Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in commercial and industrial applications, not for normal day- to - day consumer use or medical use. Technical aerosols includes industrial cleaners (e.g., electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux removers, de greasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet spray s, aircraft insecticides); a subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens for observation under electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/clea ning spray s. Technical aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as industrial spray paints and document preservation spray s. Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and include, but are not limited to, products regulated b y the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical aerosols include metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disea se, calamine spray , anti - fungals, wart treatments, wound care spray s, freeze or coolant spray

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

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 43 of 143 Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the categories described above. For example, insect spray s include products with both commercial and consumer applications. The commercial application would include insect spray s used by utility power line workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aeroso l) and the consumer use would include residential household insect repellant commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer aerosol). Another example is freeze spray s which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food freeze spray s, animal waste spray s) or m edical aerosols (e.g., wart removers, pain relievers). Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is concentrated within household consumer products. This category has the highest production volume, reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 t o 2011 (CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes man y personal care products (325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has identified as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a) . Some of the dominant consumer aerosols includes ai r fresheners, deodorants, household cleaners, and hairspray .

**3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?**  Today ’s action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HFC - 125, HFC - 134a and HFC - 227ea as of January 1, 2 016 as follows:

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

 We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC - 134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in the foll owing: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics; spray s for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in to tal release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 44 of 143 use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower - GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for sy nthetic fabrics; duster spray s specifical ly for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation spray s; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, an d other diseases where aerosols can be used for sy stemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound care spray s; topical coolant spray s for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.

 EPA is also proposing to list HFC - 227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use onl y in metered dose inhalers. **a. What other alternatives are available?**  EPA is proposing to change the listing decisions for HFC - 125, HFC - 134a, and HFC 227ea as of January

1, 2016 because safer alternatives (i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or potentially available that reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants include HFC - 152a, HFO - 1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, CO 2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, technological options include not - i n - kind alternatives such as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes, and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124 compared with HFC - 134a’s GWP of 1,430, HFC - 227ea’s GWP of 3,220 and HFC - 125’s GWP of 3,500. 24 A ll of these alternatives have an ODP of zero, are relativel y low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining below their respective exposure limits

24 GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materia ls .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 45 of 143 when used as aerosol propellants. Inaddition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other environme ntal and health attributes that the SNAP program considers that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isob utane, and DME are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards; thus, these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground - level ozone. HFC - 125, HFC - 134a, HFC - 227ea, HFC - 152a, HFO - 1234ze(E), and the compressed gases CO 2 and N 2 are not defined as VOCs under these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact on ground - level ozone levels. i. Consumer Aerosols For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs that meet other environmental regulatory requirements: HFC - 152a, which has a GWP of 124; HFO - 1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6; and CO 2 with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions (range of GWPs from 1 430 to 3500 for HFC - 134a, HFC - 227ea and HFC - 125). These three substitutes also provide a range of performance based on vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to propel the necessary

ingredients out of the aerosol container. The v apor pressures of HFO 1234ze(E), HFC - 152a, and CO 2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectivel y. ii. Technical aerosols Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous requirements for selection because of performance demands that do not exist for most consumer aerosols. For example,

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 46 of 143 nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable alternatives, the nonflammable options at room tempe rature include HFC - 125, HFC - 134a, HFC - 227ea, HFO - 1234ze(E) and compressed gases including CO 2 and N 2 . At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or 85°F), HFO 1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher flammability limits and could catch fire under specific condition s of concentration and in the presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol product formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of HFO - 1234ze(E) and the significantl y higher vapor pressure of CO 2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the can for technical aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO - 1234ze(E), HFC - 134a, and CO 2 at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectivel y. The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used requires non - flammability and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based on the information available today , EPA believes it is necessary

to continue to allow for HFC - 134a to be used for certain techn ical spray applications because of these technical limitations. We are therefore proposing to list HFC - 134a as acceptable subject to use conditions which would limit use to those specific applications. HFC - 134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that c an consistentl y meet the technical aerosol performance requirements, other environmental regulatory requirements, and is nonflammable. EPA considered whether HFC - 227ea or HFC - 125 should be continue to be listed as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have significantly higher GWPs than HFC - 134a (HFC - 227ea’s GWP is 3220 and HFC - 125’s GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use of HFC - 227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly , EPA is not aware of any significant use of HFC - 125 in te chnical aerosols. Neither HFC - 227ea nor HFC - 125 provides

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 47 of 143 greater reduction in health or environmental risk than HFC - 134a. iii. Medical Aerosols EPA is proposing to list HFC - 134a and HFC - 227ea as acceptable subject to use conditions which specify that these two HFCs are acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there is no confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these medical aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC - 134a as acceptable subject to use conditions for wound care spray s, for topical coolant spray s for pain alleviation and for products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special needs for safety and low toxicity . Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for use in medical devices, it must first be reviewed and approved b y the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use in metered dose inhalers using HFC - 134a and HFC - 227ea as propellants, as well as some not - in kind dry powder medications. FDA has not approved medications for MDI s or other medical aerosols using HFC - 125. EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currentl y using h ydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not - in - kind alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, calami ne sprays, freeze spray s for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014 a). EPA has insufficient information that alternatives other than HFC - 134a are available as propellants in wound care spray s; topical coolant spray s for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are available alternatives with less overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC - 134a. For these reasons, we are proposing to list HFC - 227ea as acceptable sub ject to a use condition limiting its use to MDI s and to list HFC - 134a as acceptable subject to use conditions limiting its use to MDI s and the other medical uses listed above.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 48 of 143 HFC - 125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all other alternativ es that are available for use as aerosol propellants (HFC - 227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC - 134 has a GWP of 1430; HFO - 1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). Like HFC - 134a, HFC - 227ea, CO 2 and HFO 1234ze(E), it is VOC - exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity . When EPA liste d HFC - 227ea as acceptable (May

22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted that it was doing so d espite the relativel y high GWP of this compound, because it fit a specialized application, metered dose inhalers, where other substitutes were not available that would p rovide acceptable performance. EPA’s proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC - 134a and HFC - 227ea onl y to manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products is modeled upon the Nonessential Product Ban exemptions for ODS in subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban and the proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol products in interstate commerce, whereas this proposal addresses the propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products. Today , EPA is proposing to list HFC - 125 as unacceptable, HFC - 227ea as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use onl y for MDI s and HFC - 134a as acceptable subject to use conditi ons allowing its use only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. We request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these three HFCs. We also request comment on whether any of the proposed technical aerosol uses of HFC - 134a should not be allowed or whether there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed uses under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not intending to alter the listing as acceptable for HFC - 227ea and HFC - 134a for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on the additional medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC - 134a.

**b. What other approaches is EPA considering?** 

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 49 of 143 EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for aerosols and seeks comments on both. The fir st, as discussed above, is to find HFC - 125 unacceptable and find HFC 227ea and HFC - 134a acceptable subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list of allowed uses or product ty pes that may

continue to use these HFCs (e.g., metered dose i nhalers for both HFCs, insect spray s used near high tension power lines for HFC - 134a). A second approach we are considering is to find HFC - 125 unacceptable and to find HFC - 134a acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical aerosols and HFC - 227ea subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered “use restrictions” and are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC - 227ea in metered dose inhalers or using HFC - 134a in technical or medical aerosols would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The terms “technical aerosol” and “medical aerosol” would apply to the types of aerosols described above in section 2. “Aerosols t oday .” Under the narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other user intending to use the substitute could only use HFC - 134a in manufacturing a technical or medical aerosol, or HFC - 227ea in manufacturing a metered - dose inhaler, after ascertaining that other alternatives are not technicall y feasible. The user also would be required to document their evaluation. 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses are that the list is clear about which products are allowed to use HFC - 134a or HFC - 227ea, both for users and for EPA. In addition, because EPA is specifying the uses in advance, end - users would not be required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep paperwork to document their evaluation, thereb y reduc ing regulatory burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use limits is that it may

encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 50 of 143 alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC - 134a is not required. Further, establishin g narrowed use limits may allow greater flexibility

if there are additional ty

pes of technical or medical aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC - 134a that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment on these two approaches to modifying the listings of HFC - 134a and HFC - 227ea as aerosol propellants.

**c. When would the modified listings apply?**  EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings for HFC - 125, HFC 134a and HFC - 227ea would be modified. Thus products manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 in contravention of the unacceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions listing for these substitutes could not be used. We are proposing this date because we believe it is expeditious but will all ow sufficient time after this proposed rule for end users to make the transition to alternatives. Based on the information available to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives. EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aeros ols can make the necessary changes within this timing (I CF, 2014a; Honey well, 2014). In most cases, EPA believes it will take approximately

six months for the necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the affected aerosol manufacturers and pa ckagers sufficient time to change and test formulations and, to the extent necessary , to change the equipment in their factories. T o prevent stranded inventory , we are proposing that products manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end user after January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that en d users would need to dispose of a usable product, including the potential for improper releases of the content into the environment.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 51 of 143 **d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?**  EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the following a erosol propellants: HFC - 125 from acceptable to unacceptable; HFC - 134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics; spray s for aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically

disallo wed all other lower - GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for s ynthetic fabrics; duster sprays specificall y for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microsco pes; document preservation spray s; metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for sy stemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs ; wound c are spray s; topical coolant spray s for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage adhesives from skin; and HFC - 227ea from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers. EPA also received sugge stions from the aerosol industry to consider an exception to allow the use of HFC - 134a in additional categories of aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to include these categories, either because we are aware of existing products in these categories usin g low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information indicating that the use of HFC - 134a is necess ary for these categories of products because other substitutes that pose lower risk are not currently or potentiall y available . These categories include: component freeze spray s, tissue freezes, refrigeration s ys tem flushes , portable safety horns for use in marine and

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 52 of 143 industrial applications , tire inflators, and personal defense spray s. We are aware of low - GWP formulations already on the market to day for defensive spray s and tissue freezes. These formulations may

use flammable and/or non - flammable propellants . We request information on why available substitutes other than HFC - 134a are not and cannot be used in these categories of products , including information on why flammability

may be a concern or not in the product category ; whether other alternative propell ants with lower GWP in place of HFC - 134a have been tested in these products; and what results of those tests have shown about the technical feasibility and/or safety of the other alternative propellants. Finally , we request comments on modifying the listin gs as of January 1, 2016. We request commenters include specific information on whether it would be technicall y feasible for end - users to transition by January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps are expected to take. **B. Motor vehicle air conditioning for newly manufactured light**  **- duty motor**  **vehicles 1.**  **Background** MVAC sy stems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and rail vehicles . CFC - 12 refrigerant was historically used in MVAC sy stems . HFC - 134a replaced CFC - 12 in new equipment in the earl y 1990s. Today , HFC - 134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light - duty vehicles worldwide. When EPA found HFC - 134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty vehicles in 1994 ( March 18, 199 4 ; 59 FR 13044) , the Agency stated: HFC - 134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC - 134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which have been determined to be acceptable for this end

- use. However, HFC

- 134a’s contribu tion to global warming could be significant in leaky end - uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 53 of 143 HFC - 134a in these applications is acceptable because industry continues to develop technology to limit emissions. In addition, the number of substitutes available for use in MVACs is currently limited. HFC - 134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low. This analy sis was consistent with the information available in 1994. Since that time, f our additional substitutes have been added to the list of s ubstitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other substitutes are used in systems designed consistent with the prescribed use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human health and the environment than HFC - 134a . EPA is therefore proposing to remove HFC - 134a from the list of accep table substitutes for new light - duty vehicles’ MVAC systems and add it to the list of unacceptable substitutes. Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as acceptable subject to use conditions . 25 Three of these alternatives - HFO - 1234yf, HFC - 152a, and carbon dioxide (R 744) - are non - ozone depleting like HFC - 134a and have low GWPs compared to HFC - 134a. HFC - 152a has a GWP of 124, HFO - 1234yf has a GWP of 4 , and R - 744 (by definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC - 134a has a GWP of 1,430. R - 744 is nonflammable, HFO - 1234yf and HFC - 152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability concerns . All three substitutes are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded and all three are VOC exempt. At the time EPA listed HFC - 134a as acceptable, the agency was not aware of any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer considering HFO - 1234yf as a refrigerant. Today , HFO - 1234yf is in use in MVAC sy stems in approximately nine 26 models in the United States by several manufacturers of light - duty vehicles. EPA expects addition al models will be **25** Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 26 http://www.autone ws.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming - to - the - idea .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 54 of 143 introduced using HFO - 1234yf sy stems over the next several ye ars . To date, at least one global manufacturer of light - duty vehicles has announced their intention to commercialize vehicl es using R - 744 in MVAC sy stems later this decade . 27 In the mid - 1990s, EPA became aware that R - 744 sy stems might be a feasible alternative in this application , but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet available because a design had not yet been developed that would allow safe u se in MVAC sy stems in light duty vehicles. Nearly

20 years later, EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R 744 in MVAC sy stems. However, significant research and development is occurring in order to ensure R - 744 can be used safel y in MVAC s ys t ems. In addition to HFO - 1234yf, HFC - 152a, and R - 744, EPA is aware of ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in future listings of additional alternatives for MVAC sy stem s. One chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP a pproval for another low - GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150. 28 There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions. None of these are currentl y used by the original equipment manufacturers ( OEMs ) . Several of these previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantl y higher than the GWPS for HFO - 1234yf, HFC - 152a, and R - 744 and higher overall risk than these other three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable the follow ing substitutes in addition to HFC - 134a: SP34E (GWP of 1300), R - 426A (also known as RS - 24) (GWP of 1508) , R - 416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC blends , R 406A, R - 414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG - X4), R - 414 B (also known as HCFC

27 Daimler, 201 4 28 Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting December 6, 2013

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 55 of 143 Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG - HP) , with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056 . For simplicity, we refer to these s ubstitutes as “the refrigerant blends” in the following discussion.

**2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC**  **- 134a**  **and use of refrigerant blends**  **in MVAC systems for**  **newly manufactured light -**  **duty mo**  **tor vehicle s**  **?** EPA is proposing to list HFC - 134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC s ys tems in newly manufactured light - duty vehicles beginning with MY 2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because that is the time by

which all light - duty

vehicle models can be redesigned to safel y use MVAC sy stems using other availab le refrigerants. As explained above, three alternatives on the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes subject to use conditions

—HFC - 152a, R - 744, and HFO - 1234yf

— have significantl y lower GWPs than HFC - 134a . All three of these lower - GWP alternatives are non - ozo ne depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded. All three are VOC exempt . HFO - 1234yf and HFC - 152a are flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address f lammability concerns. R - 744 is not flammable. Because HFC - 134a has a significantl y higher GWP than HFC - 152a, R 744, and HFO - 1234yf and because the risks posed by these three refrigerants are addressed through use conditions, we are proposing to list HFC - 1 34a as unacceptable. However, because the three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC - 134a only if used consistent with the established use conditions, in deciding when the unacceptability determination should apply , we considered the date by

which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle models (including design of the MVAC sy stems) consistent with the use conditions.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 56 of 143 EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R - 426A, R - 416A, R - 406A, R 414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG - X4), R - 414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG - HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in MVAC sy stems in newl y manufactured l ight - duty motor vehicles . Since these refrigerant blends are not currentl y in use in any MVAC systems in light - duty vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability

determination to apply

to model year vehicles currently being designed. Furth er, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC - 152a, HFO - 1234yf, and CO 2 . EPA has previously

examined when automobile manufacturers may be able to transition their fleets to l ower GWP refrigerants in its rules to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year (MY) 2017 - 2025 light - duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624 , 62807 - 810 (October 15, 2012) ; see also 75 FR 25325, 25431 - 32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the same issue for MY 2012 - 2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly

issued these rules on August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017 - 202 5 light - duty

vehicles (passenger cars, light - duty trucks, and medium - duty passenger vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions, with societal net benefits up to $451 billi on. 77 FR 62629. The standards build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012 - 2016 light - duty vehicles, which are projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil and 962 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the affected vehi cles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 billion. 75 FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire light - duty vehicle fleet will meet a target of 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 57 of 143 automotive industry

meet s the target exclusively through fuel efficiency

improvements). When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning s ys tems, they contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP refrigerants can significantly reduce the climate impact of these emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower - GWP chemicals suitable for this purpose and sy stems that can use them, as well as increasing requirement for lower - GWP refrigerants in Europe, 29 EPA based the light - duty GHG standards for MYs 20 17 - 2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lower - GWP refrigerants . Thus, in setting the level of the standards, EPA projected that the industry will make the full transition to lower GWP refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 20 17 and MY 2021 , and the level of the standard in each of these model years reflects a projected 20 percent increase in substitution in each model year and complete transition by MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2 - 3. In support of the assumption of this multi - year tran sition, the L ight - Duty GHG rule for MYs 2017 - 2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant substitute availability and technical feasibili ty of transitioning the fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807 - 810. At the time the L ight Duty GHG rule was promulgated , EPA (and other entities) voiced concerns with the potential supply of HFO - 1234yf, but today production plans for the refrigerant appear to be in place to make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic auto industry demand , consiste nt with the projections in the L ight Duty GHG rulemaking. Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO - 1234yf , and recently

another global chemical producer announced plans to produce HFO - 1234yf b y 2017. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers are develop ing s ys tems that can safel y use other substitutes , including

29 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive ) . Available at: http://eur - lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 58 of 143 R - 744, and continued progress is likely given the EU’s implementation of the MAC Directive . I f some global li ght - duty motor vehicle manufacturers use R - 744 , additional volumes of HFO 1234yf that would have been used b y those manufacturers will then become available. There fore, there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand domesticall y and abroad, including in the European Union, during this time frame. In addition to consi dering when the suppl y of alternative refrigerants would be sufficient to transition the entire light duty vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle manufacturers c ould design sy stems for safe use of these alternatives consistent with the regulatory

use conditions . 30 EPA considered the practices used by the auto manufacturing industry in introducing new tec hnologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers establish a “redesign” (or product development) cycle over which they plan an y significant technolo gical changes to that vehicle. Between the major redesign model ye ars, they may mak e onl y minor “refresh” changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by

manufacturer and average a

bout 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 6 2712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice . ) At an y point in time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major redesign point and others that are earlier in their product cycle. In the final rule establi shing light - duty vehicle GHG standards for MYs 2017 - 2025, EPA assumed that the transition to alternative refrigerants would generall y occur during manufacturer model redesigns and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years to estimat e how the expected industry- wide transition to new refrigerants might occur. For analy tical

30 As previously noted, HFO - 1234yf, R - 744 and HFC - 152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many of the use conditions address the design of systems to account for the flammability or exposure .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 59 of 143 purposes, and based on information available at the time, we projected that the transition would occ ur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been so me earl y adopters. The transition began in a small number of MY 201 3 vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has been relatively

limited to date . 31 While some may maintain that earl y adopt ion equates to a faster overall transition, EPA notes that earl y a doption remains limited and therefore we continue to view our projection of full transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reason able . Although there may

be some limited ability

to switch a vehicle model to an MVAC sy stem using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign periods, most model ty pes will require significant hardware changes that may onl y be possible during a redesign. HFO - 1234yf, for example, has measurabl y lower efficiency than that of HFC - 134a, usually requiring hardware changes and/or chan ges to overall air conditioning sy stem design and layout . 32 , **33** This contrasts with the case of the transition in the 1990s from CFC - 12 to HFC - 134a, where the s ys tems had similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were able to switch many vehicles mid cycle. Vehicles that require relatively more cooling capacity

will be more dependent on a redesign cycle for a transition to HFO - 1234yf since the specifications for hardware would need to be revisited. M ost manufacturers have “locked - in” their planne d product designs out to MY 2016, MY 2017, or even MY 2018 . If an y of these manufacturers have not planned to implement alternative refrigerant s ys tems in these late model year vehicles, the next design cycle

31 Nelson, Gabe “Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate” Automobile News, December 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmi ng to - the - idea . **32** Weissler, Paul, “A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R- 1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,” Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013. **33** One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware changes were necessary o r likely when shifting from a HFC - 134a to a HFO - 1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/ or compressor changes, possible A/ C piping modification due to the change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant, additional refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum: “Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition”, Tad Wysor, Ap ril 2014.) Other manufacturers made similar statements to EPA.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 60 of 143 opportunity

to make a change would be unlikel y to occur until MY 2021 ( or even MY 2022 ) . In addition, at least one manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R- 744 (CO 2 ) systems. R - 744 sy stems require significantly more complex redesign and hardware and would need to occur during product redesign, not product refresh given its pressure is significantly different than HFC - 134a . The se s ys tems are currentl y in prototype phase , and there are significant technical hurdles yet to overcome . Given EPA’s under standing , above, of the suppl y of the alternative refrigerants and the redesign cycle for MVAC sy stems, EPA is proposing to list HFC - 134a as unacceptable for new MVAC sy stems beginning with MY 2021 because th is is the time by which all light - duty vehicle m odels can be redesigned to safel y use MVAC sy stems with alternative refrigerants. As a cross - check, EPA explore d whether vehicles and MVAC systems designed consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative refrigerants might be available earlier than MY 2021 , evaluating (but not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date included in the petition described above and in the EU MAC D irective. Since most motor vehicle manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform , selecting the same date as the date in the EU MAC Directive has some weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 and 2021. The agency

believe s it is necessary

for MVAC sy stem redesign s for man y vehicles to occur during a design cycle to safe ly use the substitute refrigerants, as just explained. Manufacturers are currently designing or have “locked in” designs for vehicles several model ye ars into the future . The information currently before the Agency

thus indicates that it would not be techn icall y feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all vehicles from HFC - 134a MVACs by

MY 2 017. EPA is not proposing the MY 2019 date for the same reasons . However,

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 61 of 143 we solicit comment on whether all manufacturers would be able to safel y transition all vehicles away from HFC - 134a MVAC sy stems by MY 2017 or MY 2019. We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the appropriate time for use of HFC - 134a in MVAC sy stems in new vehicles to be list ed as unacceptable. In recent meetings with th e major trade associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global Automakers) as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers, industry representatives indicated that some of them may have a relativel y small number of vehicle model s that will not have had the opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They also indicated that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would require longer product design cycles if the sy stems were to use substitute refrigerants . H owever, we do not have sufficient non - confidential information to conclude that sy stems capable of using alternative refrigerant safel y will not be “currentl y or potentially available”

– within the meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the Act -- until after M Y 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of HFC - 134a in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025) , including specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021 would not be technicall y feasible because specific model v ehicles cannot be redesigned to safel y use alternative refrigerants by MY2021 . For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will be available b y MY 2021. Based on the information before the Agency , EPA is thus proposing to modify the listing of HFC - 134a to unacceptable as of MY 202 1 for light duty vehicles , while seeking comment on MYs 2017, 2019 , and MYs later than 2021. 34

34 Ty pically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have applied to specified calendar years, However, because the MVAC system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY for purposes of this

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 62 of 143 EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC - 134a. S uch a change could strand the installed base of equipment or force retrofits to other refrigerants . In order to safel y use most MVAC refrigerants, the vehicle design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in order to ensure the refrigerant can be used safel y. For that reason, the three low - GWP refrigerants that currentl y are listed as acceptable in new MVACs

—HFO - 1234yf, HFC - 152a, and R - 744

–are not listed as acceptable to retrofit a s ys tem designed to use a different refrigerant . Once MVA C sy stems are designed and installed with lower GWP substitutes, they will likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO - 1234yf and HFC - 134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO - 1234 yf with HFC - 134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations under title VI of the CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful. First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to ‘top - off’ a s ys tem that uses another refrig erant. Second, the original refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute (4 0 CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery regulations prohibit adding a new refrigerant to the sy stem without first recovering the refrigerant already in the sy stem. Therefore, it is not permissible to add HFC - 134a to an MVAC sy stem that contains HFO - 1234yf, as may well occur if a consumer were to service his or her own car’s A/C sy stem wi thout refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings for HFO - 1234yf and HFC - 134a require the use of unique fittings for each alternative refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberatel y modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant is a v iolation of proposed rule. Model years cover almost two calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar year and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 63 of 143 these use conditions . EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R - 426A , R - 416A , R - 406A, R 414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG - X4), R - 414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG - HP) to unacceptable for use as refrigerants in air conditioning sy stems for newly manufactured light - duty

motor vehicles beginning with MY 2017 and changing the listing of HFC - 134a to unacceptable beginn ing with MY 2021.

**3. W**  **ould this action affect EPA’s light duty vehicle rule?**  Today ’s proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect on the MY 2017 - 2025 light duty vehicle GHG standards . Those standards are established b y rule and EPA is not reopening that rule in this proceeding. We do note, however, that today ’s proposa l is relevant to on e of the compliance flexibiliti es in the light duty vehicle standards. The light duty vehicle standards do not require any specific means of compliance . Manufacturers thus have the flexibility to either switch refrigerants or to comply w ith the standards by

other means . The light duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC - 134a through MY 2025 , and the ability to generate and use those credits towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change if this action is finalized as proposed . See 77 FR 62804 - 809. (As noted above, the level of the standard reflects the assumption of 100% substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer may c hoose to compl y with the light duty standard by a strategy

not involving refrigerant substitution, in MY 2021 , this proposed rule , if finalized , would still require the manufacturer to use an MVAC designed for a refrigerant other than HFC - 134a . **C. R** **e tail**  **food refrigeration and vending machines**

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 64 of 143 **1. Background**  Retail f ood refrigeration, an end - use within the SNAP program that is also considered a subset of the broader term “commercial refrigeration,” is characterized b y storing and displaying, generall y for sale , food and beverages at different temperatures for different products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating capaci ties of equipment vary widel y. Vending m achines are another subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate end use within the SNAP program due to differences in where such equipment is placed and the additional mechanical and electronic components required to accept pay ment, provide the selected product, and prevent theft or damage from vandalism. Retail f ood refrigeration is composed of three main categories of equipment: stand - alone equipment; condensing units; and supermarket s ys tems, the latter often in designs referred to as multiplex or centralized refrigeration sy stems. Stand - alone equipment consists of refrigerators, freezers, and reach - in coolers ( either open or with doors ) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the smallest ty pes, the refrigeration circuit is entirel y brazed or welded. These sy stems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and ty pically require only

an electricity

suppl y to begin operation. Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed of one (and sometimes two) compre ssor(s), one condenser, and one receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more nearb y evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display cases and/or walk - in storage rooms. Condensing units are commonly

installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries and butcher shops.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 65 of 143 Ty pical supermarket s ys tems are known as multiplex or centralized sy stems. They operate with racks of compressors inst alled in a machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design classifications are used: direct and indirect sy stems. In the United States , direct s ys tems are the most widespread. At least 70 percent of supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX) sy stems to cool their display cases . 35 The refrigerant circulates from the machinery

room to the sales area, where it ev aporates in display- case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk- in cold rooms are often integrated into the s ys tem and cooled similarly , but an alternative option is to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a given storage room. Another ty pe of supermarket design, often referred to as a distributed refrigeration sy stem, uses an array of separate compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a central compre ssor rack sy stem. Each of these smaller racks handles a portion of the supermarket load, with 5 - 10 such sy stems in a store. Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop sy stems and cascade refrigeration. Indirect s ys tems use a chiller or other refri geration sy stem to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an indirect sy stem rel y on a lineup of 10 - 20 units, each using small charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more or f ewer of the chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop sy stem whereb y the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact chiller is an independent unit with its own re frigerant charge, reducing the potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or catastrophic failures. Cascade s ys tems use a 35 http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced - refrigeration

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 66 of 143 compressor to raise the low - temperature coolant from low - temperature conditions up to an intermediate temperature while a sep arate refrigerant sy stem uses a different refrigerant to condense the coolant. Each sy stem within the cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge allowing the use of different refrigerants in each sy stem. This application has generally used a low - GW P refrigerant, specificall y carbon dioxide ( R - 744 ) , in the low - temperature sy stem , with a variety of refrigerants in the medium - temperature sy stem . Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the temperature required, and energy efficiency , among other things. In addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other federal or local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance, regulations from the OSHA may

restrict or place requirements on the use of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R - 717) . Building codes from local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the refrigerant and operating s ys tem design **.** While a number of approaches exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic anal ys is of the multiple factors, which include the following : energy efficiency ; sy stem performance; potential impact on community

safety ; ambient temperatures; potential risk to personal safety ; cost; and minimization of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these and other factors mean there will be a range of options , and the ultimate selection remains with the owner and operator of the s ys tem. Acceptable non - HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex systems include R - 717 and R - 744. These can be used alone or in combination with other refrigerants in other parts of the equipment , depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary- loop contains one refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different refrigerant). For stand - alone refrigeration

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 67 of 143 equipment, propane (R - 290) is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also proposed that the h ydroc arbon blend R - 441A and isobutane (R - 600a) be listed as acceptable subject to use conditions ( July , 9, 2014 ; 79 FR XXXXX) . The Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as acc eptable subject to use conditions for vending machines ( ( July , 9, 2014 ; 79 FR XXXXX ) . Other substitutes , such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as acceptable under SNAP , are currently in use in the United States , while HFOs and blends containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have not yet been submitted to the SNAP program for review. The most common ly- used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food refrigeration include HFC - 134a, R - 404A, R - 407A, R - 422D , and R - 507A. HFC - 134a is a non - ozone depleting chemical with the chemical formula C 2 H 2 F 4 . It is used in a variety of air - conditioning and refrigeration end - uses, including motor vehicle air conditioners, home appliances (such as refrigerator - freezers), ven ding machines and building air - conditioning chillers. It is also used in other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants. HFC - 134a has a GWP of 1,430. R - 404A is a non - ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC - 125, HFC - 143a, and HFC 134a with GWP s of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively . R - 404A’s GWP is about 3,920 based on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R - 404A is currentl y acceptable for a variety of medium - and low - temperature refrigeration applications in cluding retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases; vending machines; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R - 407A is a non - ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC - 32, HFC - 125 and HFC - 134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500 , and 1,430 respectivel y. R - 407A’s GWP is about 2,100 based on the

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 68 of 143 20/40/40 mass percentages of the three HFCs contained in the blend. R - 407A is acceptable for a variety of medium - and low - temperature refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases ; cold storage warehouses ; commercial ice machines ; refrigerated transport ; and industrial process refrigeration. R - 407A is not currentl y on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants for vending machines. R - 422D is a non - ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC - 125, HFC - 134a, and R - 600a with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430 , and 8 (GE, 2008) respectivel y. R - 422D’s GWP is about 2,700 b ased on the approximate 6 5.1 /31 .5 /3 .4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon contained in the blend. R - 422D is acceptable for a variety of medium - and low - temperature refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases ; cold storage warehouses ; commercial ice machines ; refrigerated transport ; and industrial process refrigeration. R - 422D is most commonly used to retrofit existing sy stems such as those operating on HCFC - 22 and is less likel y to be used in manufacturing new equipment . R - 507A (also designated as R - 507) is a non - ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC 125 and HFC - 143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, respectivel y. R - 507A’s GWP is about 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R - 507A is acceptable for a variety of medium - and low - temperature refrigeration applications including in retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage cases ; cold storage warehouse s ; refrigerated transport ; and industrial process refrigeration.

**2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration**  **(condensing units and supermarket systems)?** EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new and retrofi t retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 69 of 143 blends are R - 404A, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 428A, R - 434A and R - 507A. EPA is not aware of an y significant use in the United States of the blends R - 407B, R - 421B, R 428A or R - 434A in retail food refrigeration equipment . Inaddition, EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC - 227ea in new retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable. 36 These ten refrigerants have GW P s ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. T hey are nonflammable . They contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of “VOC , ” with the exception of small amounts of R - 290 and R - 600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected to contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relativel y low in toxicity , and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure that their workplace exposure l imits are not exceeded. These practices include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sh eets and other s common in the commercial refrigeration industry . Applicable workplace exposure limits for the compo unds comprising these refrigerants

—HFC - 32, HFC - 125, HFC - 134a, HFC 143a, HFC - 227ea, R - 290 and R - 600a

—include Workplace Environmental Exposure Li mits (WEEL s) of 1000 ppm on an 8 - hour time - weighted average (TWA) from the American Industrial Hygi ene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer’s recommended occupational exposure limit of 1000 ppm (8 - hr TWA); a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm (8 - hr TWA) from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10 - hr TWA) from the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). EPA believes there are several HFC and non - HFC sub stitutes that provide lower overall risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable and that are currentl y use d in commercial refrigeration . For both new and retrofit equipment , acceptable refrigerants that pose 36 EP A has not previously found HFC - 227ea acceptable as a retrofit refrigerant in this end - use.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 70 of 143 less risk to human health and the environment include HFC - 134a, R - 407A, R - 407C, R - 407F, R 417A, R - 421A, R - 422B, R - 424A, R - 426A , and R - 438A. Additionally , in new retail food refrigeration , three other substitute refrigerants are listed as acceptable : R - 717 vapor compression with secondary loop, R - 410A, and R - 744. **a) New condensing**  **units and supermarket systems**  EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in new retail f ood refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket sy stems) as of January

1, 2016: HFC - 227ea, R - 404A, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R 422D, R - 428A, R - 434A , and R - 507A. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately

2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, R - 404A and R - 507A , are currently in extensive use in the retail food refrigeration market. EPA is also aware of some use of R - 422A and R - 422D in retrofit situations only , not in new equipment. We are not aware of the use of any of the other six refrigerants in retail food refrigeration, although we seek comment on such use. Other acceptable alternatives that pose lower risk are also in use in the various ty pes of retail food refrigeration equipment. For condensing unit s ys tems, R - 407C and R - 407F are in use in the United States , and R - 744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration trials in Europe and elsewhere. The GWP for R - 407C (a blend of HFC - 32, HFC - 125 , and HFC - 134a) is about 1,770 , and R - 40 7F (another blend of HFC - 32, HFC - 125 , and HFC - 134a) has a GWP of about 1,820 . As a comparison, R - 404A has a GWP of 3,920, R - 507A has a GWP of 3,990, and the other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3, 985 . For multiplex rack sy stems, substitutes R - 407A, R - 407F, and R - 744 are all currentl y in use in the United States and can be used more safe ly than the substances that EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. Inaddition, t esting

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 71 of 143 is underway

with HCs and HFC/HFO blends , though these refrigerants have not been submitted to SNAP for review in this application . Each of these four substitutes as well as other substitutes in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe for the ozone layer. R - 407A, R 407F, and R - 744 all have toxicity lower than or comparable to the refrigerants proposed unacceptable. None of the three examples that would remain on the acceptable list is flammable , and none is considered a VOC.

**b) Ret**  **rofit condensing units and supermarket systems**  EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket sy stems) as of January

1, 2016: R - 404A, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 428A, R - 434A , and R - 507A. We are aware of four of these nine refrigerants being used to retrofit retail food equipment: R - 404A , R - 507A , R - 422A , and R - 422D . We are not aware of any use of the other five ref

rigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek comment on any such use. This action would not apply to servicing existing equipment designed for these nine refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. For instance, s ys tems retrofitted to R - 404A or R - 507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate and to be serviced using those refrigerants. For condensing units and supermarket s ys tems, where retrofits are common, blends such as R - 407A and R - 407F have become the norm for retrofits, rather than the four identified in the previous paragraph . The blends R - 407A and R - 407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2 , 107 and 1 , 825, respectivel y. Other zero - ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as acceptable for use as retrofit s in retail food refrigeration include HFC - 134a, R - 407C, R - 417A, R - 421A, R - 422B, R 426A and R - 427A and they have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 72 of 143 the other nine blends we are propos ing as unacceptable , which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985 . An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted equipment could primarily affect the man y stores that operat e us ing HCFC - 22, but also those using CFC - 12, R - 502, and sev eral HCFC - containing blends such as R - 401A, R - 402A and R - 408A. This is because as EPA reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores will have less material to meet service demands. While the ODS phaseout does not require owners to retrofi t their equipment, a decrease in the availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those stores to consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain refrigerants would not be acceptable. For instance, some s tores currently using HCFC - 22 may choose to retrofit as the production and import of HCFC - 22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per 40 CFR 82.16 . EPA recentl y proposed HCFC - 22 allowance allocations for the 2014 - 2019 time period ( December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some h ave questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate with the ODS they are currentl y using for longer than they might otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this question . Inresponse to this question, we note that m any retail chains have been able to minimize the impact of the HCFC - 22 phasedown by maintaining their own stockpile of HCFC 22, for instance b y recovering from stores that are decommissioned or retrofitted and u sing such supplies in stores that continue to operate with HCFC - 22 . We also note that some service is being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds of HCFC - 22 being reclaimed every

year since at least 2000, and over seven million pounds every year since 2006 . 37

37 The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on EPA’s website at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 73 of 143 While we don’t know how this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited newly- produced supplies that are being reduced b y the phaseout. Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC - 22, we believe that the majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the suppl y of the refrigerant currently in - use, for instance during planned maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy e fficient equipment. We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards lower - GWP blends such as R - 407A and R - 407F instead of R - 404A and R - 507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that o the r options, given the multi - ye ar history of their succ essful use, are sufficient to meet the various features

— such as capacity , efficiency , materials compatibility, cost and supply

—that affect the choice of a retrofit refrigerant. 38

**3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand**  **- alone equipment?**  **a) New**  **stand -**  **al one equipment**  EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC - 134a and other refrigerants for new stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC - 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R - 404A, R - 407A, R - 407B, R - 407C, R - 407F, R - 410A, R - 410B, R - 417A, R - 421A, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422B, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 424A, R - 426A, R 428A, R - 434A, R - 437A, R - 438A, R - 507A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation), RS - 44 ( 2003 formulation), SP34E , and THR - 03. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately

3,990. Acceptable substitutes in new stand - alone equipment include R - 744 and R - 290. EPA **38** For example, see CCAC 2012.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 74 of 143 recentl y proposed to find R - 600a and R - 441A acceptable subject to use conditions in new stand alone equipment ( July , 9, 2014 ; 79 FR XXXXX). These existing and potential substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC - 134a with a GWP of 1,430, R- 404A with a GWP of approximately

3,920, and R - 507A with a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of the substitutes currently

listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While R - 290, R 600a, and R - 441A are VOCs, EPA’s anal ys is indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end use would not significantly affect meeting national ambient air quality standards. At the time we listed R - 290 as acceptable subject to use conditions, we anal yz ed the potential air quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this potential risk to the environment to be significant (I CF, 201 4 e). 39 We have likewise proposed to exempt R - 600a and R - 441A used in stand - alone equipment from the venting prohibition (July , 9, 2014 ; 79 FR XXXXX). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the use conditions specified (or proposed for R - 600a and R - 441A) would ensure that they do not pose greater risk than any of the substitutes currentl y listed as acceptable in new stand - alone e quipment. **40** None of the refrigerants currentl y listed as acceptable or that we have proposed to add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecos ys tem impacts . Apart from R - 290 and R 744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for new stand - alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in Section VIbelow) and/or do not appear to be in production. We understand that R - 290 is already in use globally , in cluding in the United States , and that R - 600a is in use outside of the United State as well as in test market trials in the United 39 EPA has proposed to exempt R- 290 in stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871). **40** The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in this end - use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable subject to use conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and docket (Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2009

– 0286) and information is found in a SNAP proposed rule signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA - HQ OAR - 2013 - 0748).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 75 of 143 States. We believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority

of the current market for use in stand - alone equ ipment. We note that there may be a need to modify

the equipment design in order to meet the use conditions for R - 290 and the proposed use conditions for R - 600a and R - 441A ( July , 9, 2014 ; 79 FR XXXXX). Because there are other substitutes that pose lower risk, we are proposing to change the listing to unacceptable for new stand - alone equipment of the following refrigerants: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC - 134a, HFC - 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R - 404A, R - 407A, R - 407B, R - 407C, R - 407F, R - 410A, R - 410B, R - 417A, R - 421A, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422B, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 424A, R - 426A, R 428A, R - 434A, R - 437A, R - 438A, R - 507A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation), RS - 44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR - 03.

**b) Ret**  **rofit stand -**  **alone equipment** EPA is proposing to change the listing for R - 404A and R - 507A from acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand - alone equipment as of January 1, 2016 . This action would not apply

to servicing existing equ ipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016. For instance, equipment retrofitted to R - 404A or R - 507A prior to January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those refri gerants. While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as acceptable for this purpose . For equipment still ope rating using ozone - depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other than R 404A and R - 507A that present lower overall risk to human health and the environment that are available. Our anal ys is indicates that other options such as HFC - 134a can be used to retrofit stand - alone units .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 76 of 143 **4. What is E**  **PA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines? a)**  **New vending machines** EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC - 134a and other refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON B, KDD6, R - 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R - 404A, R - 407C, R - 410A, R - 410B, R - 417A, R - 421A, R - 422B, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 426A, R 437A, R - 438A, R - 507A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation) , and SP34E. These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from a

pproximately

600 up to approximately 3,990. Acceptable existing substitutes with lower GWPs that pose less risk to human health and the environment in this end - use include R - 744 , which is currentl y being used in this end - use . In addition, EPA recentl y proposed to find R - 600a , R - 290 and R - 441A acceptable subject to use conditions in new vending machines ( July 9, 2014; 79 FR XXXXX ). We note that some redesign would be required to meet the use conditions set for all three of these substitutes

—R - 600a, R 290 and R - 441A

— in the recent proposal ( 79 FR XXXXX). These four substitutes (R - 744 and the three proposed hydrocarbons) have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC - 134a with a GWP of 1,430, R - 404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920 , and R - 507A with a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of these substitutes currently listed or proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While the HCs (R - 441A, R - 600a and R 290 ) are VOCs, EPA’s anal ys is indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end - use would not significantl y affect meeting n ational ambient air quality s tandards. (ICF 2014) . 41 These three substitutes are also flammable ; however , the proposed use conditions for these three subs titutes

**41** EPA has proposed to exempt R- 290 (propane) R- 600a (isobutane) and R - 441A in vending machines from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 77 of 143 would ensure they

do not pose greater risk than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable ( July 9, 2014; 79 FR XXXXX ) . None of the substitutes currentl y listed or proposed to be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosy stem impacts. Hence, we find that R - 290, R - 600a and R - 441A are potentially available and present a lower overall risk to human health and the environment than HFC - 134a and the other refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending machines. For new vending machines, EPA has found R - 744 acceptable without use conditions. While the vast majority

of vending machines using non - ODS refrigerant currentl y use HFC 134a , units are now being manufactured to use R - 744. At least one major global buyer of vending machines is committed to transitioning all of their new U.S. - placed equipment to R 744. 42 Given the large market share that this company holds, it is likely

that R - 744 components and units are already or will shortly become a viable option for all vending machine OEMs and purchasers. Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R - 744 and the other h ydrocarbons that EPA has proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in vending machines, the use conditions that we have proposed to establish for the h ydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks based on other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC - 134a, we propose to change the listing of HFC - 134a and the alternatives listed in the first paragraph of this section to unacceptable in new vending machines .

**b) Retrofit vending machines**  EPA is proposing to change the listing for R - 404A and R - 507A from acceptable to

42 The Coca - Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its HFC - free refrigerant of choice for new equipment (http://assets.coca - colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012 - 2013 - gri - report.pdf).

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 78 of 143 unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending machines operating on CFC - 12, HCFC - 22 , and blends containing HCFCs, as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing e quipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including those s ys tems previously using ozone depleting refrigerants such as HCFC - 22. For instance, s ys tems retrofitted to R - 404A or R - 507A prior to January

1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those refrigerants. Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain acceptable for retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC - 134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R - 407C, R - 417A, R - 417C , R - 421A, R - 422B, R 422C, R - 422D, R - 426A, R - 437A, R - 438A, RS - 24 (200 2 formulation), SP34E, and THR - 02. These refrigerants have GWPs from approximately 50 to approxim ately 3 , 100, while the two refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R - 404A and R - 507A, have GWPs of 3 , 922 and 3 , 985, respectivel y. In this respect, these two refrigerants present a higher risk to human health and the environment. Looking at the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment: they are nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and they

do not exhibit significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecos ys tem impacts. Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human health and the environment than R - 404A and R - 507A .

**5. When would the listings change?**  Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that appl y within commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date

—January 1, 2016. L ooking at the intersection between the end - use and the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as of January

1, 2016 , allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new installations or

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 79 of 143 manufacturing equipment lines in these end - uses to be redesigned to use a substitute to the refrigerants we are proposin g to find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow any plans for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the multiple other substitutes that would remain acceptable . For many years other refrigerants such as R - 407A and R - 407F that would remain on the acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining market share in supermarket applications , in both new equipment and as retrofit fluids . **43** As part of this market expansion, manufacturers have developed equipment to use them, and that equipment is available to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these other refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built up the skills, knowledge and experience to more full y utilize these refrigerants in a timeframe that would accommodate January

1, 2016 as the date of unacceptability . For stand - alone equipment and vending machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are acceptable or are proposed acceptable with use co nditions, including R - 744, R - 290 and R - 600a. **44** EPA requests comment on this proposed date. EPA is also interested in information concerning the suppl y of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition with in the proposed timeframe .

**6. Appli**  **cability to service of existing equipment** As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to service existing retail food refrigeration equipment or vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January

1, 2016 . We recognize the value of the currentl y installed appliances and are not seeking to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that servicing for existing equipment is often accomplished with recove red and recycled refrigerants.

**43** ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

**44** Ibid.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 80 of 143 EPA seeks comments on allowing for the co ntinued servicing of the existing retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January

1, 2016 . **7. Energy efficiency consideration**  Energy efficiency

has not historically

been a criteri on by

which a refrigerant is analy zed under the SNAP program, and it is not used as one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA recognizes that the energy efficiency

of particular models of equipment is a significant factor when choosing commercial re frigeration equipment. We also recognize that the energy efficiency of an y given piece of equipment is in part affected b y the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermody

namic and thermophy sical properties that refrigerant possesses. Throughout the phaseout of ozone - depleting substances, EPA has seen the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air - conditioning equipment increase, despite changing refrigerant option s . In some cases, this was because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique properties that allowed high energy efficiency

levels to be obtained. In addition, technological improvement in equipment designs and controls has increased energy efficiency . Although today ’s proposal would eliminate some refrigerant choices, we do not beli eve it would have a detrimental effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency . In fact, there are multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency

gains achieved by

some of the low - GWP refrigerants, such as R - 744, R - 290 and R - 600a , that are available or potentially available for the end - uses addressed in this proposal . We welcome additi onal information and comment on improved energy

efficiency

associated with switching refrigerants . For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a the oretical anal ys is (Emerson 2014) examined the energy

use of R - 407A and R - 410A, both of which would remain acceptable under

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 81 of 143 this proposal, against that of R - 404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this anal ys is found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in the low temperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the medium - temperature part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared food). Given that supermarkets have significantl y larger use of medium - temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the alternatives to use less energy than R - 404A. This manufacturer’s anal ys es showed similar increases in energy efficiency

compared to R - 404A in su permarkets and stand - alone equipment for a variety of low - GWP refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP but are in development. While that manufacturer’s an aly sis showed slightly higher energy

consumption than R 134a in theoretical calculations for stand - alone equipment, other results with actual equipment have shown otherwise. For instance, in stand - alone equipment, one user reported that “HC freezers are significantly

more energy- efficient and use a natural hydrocarbon refrigerant with lower global warming potential than the HFC refrigerants commonl y used in US freezers ” (Ben and Jerry ’s, 2014 ). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that while introducing over one million units using R - 744 , they have increased the energy efficiency

of their cooling equipment over 40% since 2000, many years after they

adopted HFC - 134a (Coca Cola, 2014 ). Finally , we note that energy efficiency

is influenced , but not determined , b y the refrigerant. As new products are designed for the use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant’s characteristics. The redesign and development pha se is also an opportunity to improve other components that will affect the overall efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors and

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 82 of 143 compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved insulation (e.g., on display cases ) and sealing (for products with doors), more efficient lighting, etc. The United State Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under separate rulemaking and separate authority , energy efficiency

requirements for several ty pes of commercial refrigerati on equipment, including products that would be affected by this proposal. While EPA’s proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use in new equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject to the DOE requirements and would normally

need to meet the standards set. **45** As discussed above, EPA does not believe this proposal would prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant models are already commerciall y available that do not use the refrigerants EPA has proposed as unacceptable. EPA requests c omment on the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of the commercial refrigeration end - uses addressed and in particular the effect, if any , this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE standards.

**8. What other options**  **is EPA conside**  **r ing**  **?** EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for several other substitutes in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking comment on these substitutes .

**a) New and retrofit condensing units and supermarket systems**  When analyzing supermarke t retail food refrigeration sy stems, as an alternative to changing the listing to unacceptable for HFC - 227ea, R - 407B, R - 421B, R - 422A, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 428A,

**45** Refrigeration equipment in the applicable covered equipment class would still be subject to DOE’s standards, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by a regulatory standard prescribed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed by Congress) , the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief from a standard promulgated by DOE on a case - by - case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 83 of 143 and R - 434A , we are considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket s ys tems. Supermarkets could use sy stems employing one of the many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the United States , such as distributed refrigeratio n, secondary- loop, and cascade designs. To set the charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge size limit that is necessary , but not fully sufficient , to achieve a Gold - Level Store Certification under EPA’s GreenChill Store Certification Program. **46** That specification requires that the store must achieve an average HFC refrigerant charge equal to or less than 1.25 po unds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator heat load . 47 For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction requiring a small charge is to limit the amount of high - GWP refrigerant that would be emitted in a catastrophic event. However, given the high GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in these end - uses, we do not believe that use with a small charge size adequatel y addresses the greater risk they pose . Further, we recognize that using a lower - GWP refrigerant, such as R - 407A or R - 407F, is also possible in small - charge s ys tems, and several stores are operating with such s ys tems today . F or retrofits, two primary factors le a d us to consider a use restriction for a small charge size in place of listing the substitutes as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket sy stems in operation with ozone - depleting refrigerants today , and there may be some concern that not all could be retrofitted with the lower - GWP blends , i.e., whether there trul y are 46 Add itional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/. 47 In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores must use only non - ozone - depleting refrigerants and must meet a store - wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15%in order to be certified at the Gold level.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 84 of 143 alternatives “available” for the purpose . As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First, based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs today would be at least 18 years old , beyond the ty pical average lifetime . **48** Because it is ty pical to retire older equipment before newer equipment , i t is likely th at many

stores using those refrigerants would be decommissioned , or the refrigeration sy stems would be replaced rather than retrofitted . Second, we do not see an impediment in the continued operation of stores currentl y using refrigerants proposed unaccept able for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). We know that some stores have sy stems that continue to use CFC - 12 and/or R - 502, the production and import of which was phased out in 1996, and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can be ac hieved , if desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the refrigerants we propose as unacceptable. Finall y, where retrofits to refrigerants that are not proposed as unacceptable have occurred, the industry has been able to achieve ac ceptable capacity and efficiency levels . All these factors point to the ability of industry

to make business decisions on which stores to decommission or retrofit and when to do so while maintaining their operations without the need to rel y on the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable. Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list of acceptable retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive for stores with older sy stems (more likely to leak) to continue us e of ozone - depleting refrigerants, primaril y HCFC - 22 but also CFC - 12, R 502 , and multiple blends containing HCFCs , rather than retrofit or replace those sy stems with a new refrigerant . While production and import of HCFC - 22 and all other HCFCs used in the accep table retrofit blends are capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozone -

**48** For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between seven and 15 years.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 85 of 143 depleting refrigerants into the atmosphere . The additional refrigerant that they would need to service that leaky equipment might not have be en produced in the first place if the demand was not there. Nonetheless, given the tight controls on production and import of ozone - depleting refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited supplies are directed and where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant oth er than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable. EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above , particularly the availability of substitutes able to work with the design of existing s ys tems that might be retrofitted , and the possible perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to operate older, less efficient , and/or leakier ODS sy stems. EPA also requests comments on the specified charge size limit and how it would be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigerati on (condensing units and supermarket s ys tems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction rather than take final action by listing some or all of these refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing unit s and supermarket sy stems . **b) New stand**  **- alone equipment and ve**  **nding machines** For new stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines, we are considering maintaining the acceptability status of HFC - 134a and blends with a lower GWP

— FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, SP34E, THR - 02 , and THR - 03

— subject to a use restriction. One reason to maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC 134a , would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the primary refrigerant employed in these end - uses while new low - GWP s ubstitutes are developed. For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes other than HFC - 134a are available for low - temperature refrigeration applications, for instance, for ice - cream novelty or microwavable frozen - food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use restriction

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 86 of 143 that HFC - 134a could only be used in vending machines designed for , and maintain ing , an internal temperature of 32oF (0oC) or below. H owever, we believe that the availability of R - 744, which is listed as ac ceptable, and the availability of HCs , which we have proposed to list as acceptable , do not support such an action . We are requesting comment on the viability of these substitutes in low - temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the s upply of components designed for R - 744, hydrocarbons , or other potential substitutes for use in low temperature vending machines and how that supply might affect the ability of manufacturers to continue to provide such equipment to meet these applications and customers’ requirements including energy

efficiency

goals. For new stand - alone equipment, we note that HCs pose additional challenges related to their flammability . S ome stand - alone retai l food refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have required design changes , and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits, raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications within this end - use. EPA is considering adding a use restriction limiting the use of HFC - 134a and the blends mentioned to only larger - sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller - sized units. To determine the dividing line between “small” and “large” units, we are considering options such as the number of doors within a single unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume. Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it because we feel other options exist to design units using other less harmful alternatives, even in large stand - alone units. The SNAP acceptability

listing for R - 744 in stand - alone equipment does not include a restriction on charge size or any other use condition. We also recognize the ability to apply separate refrigeration circuits within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit wi th up to 150 grams of R 290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to 150 grams of R - 290 to cool the

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 87 of 143 rest of the unit. Such dual - circuit designs might be particularl y effective if different parts of the unit are used for different produ cts that require different temperature conditions or have different refrigeration loads . EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would determine what size of a unit could not use substitutes that would remain on the acceptable list un der this proposal or that we have recentl y proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing line would be drawn ; and how such a use restriction could avoid unintended consequences such as the over - sizing of units to allow the use of HFC - 134a. EPA believes that R - 744, an acceptable option for both new stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and R - 290, an acceptable substitute for new stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending machines, could satisfy

the vast majority of new equipment in these end - uses. However, we seek additional information and studies that would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g. , 3 - door and other large retail food refrigeration stand - alone equipment) could meet the charge size limit in the case of R - 290 . We also seek information regarding whether certain applications (e.g., low - temperature vending machines) could be effective whil e maintaining current energy efficiency levels in the case of R - 744.

**c) Retrofit stand**  **- alone equipment and vending machines**  EPA has proposed to find R - 404A and R - 507A unacceptable for retrofits in both stand alone equipment and vending machines . EPA is consi dering also changing the acceptability status of several other refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option , we would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food refrigeration (stand - alone equipment): KDD6, R - 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R -

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 88 of 143 404A, R - 407A, R - 407B, R - 407C, R - 407F, R - 417A, R - 417C, R - 421A, R - 421B, R - 422A, R 422B, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 424A, R - 426A, R - 427A, R - 428A, R - 434A, R - 437A, R - 438A, R 507A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation), and RS - 44 (2003 formulation). L ikewise, this option would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit vending machines: KDD6, R - 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R - 404A, R - 407C, R - 417A, R - 417C, R - 421A, R - 422B, R - 422C, R - 422D, R - 426A, R - 437A, R - 438A, R - 507A, and RS - 24 (2002 formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range from 1,505 to 3,985. These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC - 134a, which would remain acceptable for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk to human health and the environment. Similar to HFC - 134a, these other refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxi city , flammability, ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC - 134a would be the most likely refrigerant to be used to retrofit stand - alone equipment and vending machines still operating on ozone depleting refrigerant. EPA question s whether the othe r refrigerants listed above would serve any retrofit need , and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce overall risk to human health and the environment . EPA believes some existing vending machine s and stand - alone equipment still use c lass Iozone - d epleting refrige rants such as CFC - 12 and R - 502 and that even more equipment continues to use c lass II ozone - depleting refrigerants, primaril y HCFC - 22. Other than HFC - 134a, we do not believe there are substitutes that would likely be used for most of this e quipment for purposes of retrofitting . We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes , in addition to R - 404A and R - 507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in vending machines and stand - alone retail food refrigeration equipment. In particula r, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock of

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 89 of 143 equipment operating with ozone - depleting refrigerants, the likelihood that they will require a retrofit before being replaced with a new unit , and the substitute (s) that could be and are likely to be used. **d) Status of R** **- 404A and R** **- 507A in other end**  **- uses**  Considering the high GWP of R - 404A, R - 507A , and some of the other blends proposed as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them unacceptable in several other end - uses, besides ret ail food refrig eration and vending machines , such as cold storage rooms and warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport , and industrial process refrigeration. We believe that the substitutes that are being used in retail food refrigeration, such as R- 407A and R - 407F, would be theoreticall y viable in these other end - uses too , given that the operational characteristics of such equipment, such as temperature to be maintained, are similar . T hose two substitutes, and others, have been found acceptable in th e four end - uses mentioned. In addition, low - GWP substitutes have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these end - uses, and research is underway in the others. For example, for the industrial process refrigeration end - use , R - 744, R - 717 , and several H Cs have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R - 744 is acceptable for new equipment , and R - 717 is in widespread use. R - 744 f or refrigerated transport and HCs for ice machines have been tested and, although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the United S tates . Inthese two end - uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is similar to that for supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of GWPs. S everal HFC blends with GWPs considerabl y lower than those of R - 404A and R - 507 A are being used in retail food refrigeration, especiall y in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end - uses mentioned ; however, we have limited knowledge of their use in these other end - uses. For that reason, we have not proposed fi nding R - 404A and R - 507A unacceptable in these other end - uses.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 90 of 143 EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low - GWP refrigerants (e.g., R 744, R - 717 , and HCs ) and other HFC - blends (e.g., R - 407A and R - 407F) and the possibility of listing R - 404A, R - 507A , and oth er high - GWP blends unacceptable in an y or all of these four end - uses—cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport , and industrial process refrigeration . EPA also solicits comments on the feasibility of the proposed deadlines and whether earlier or later dates would be more appropriate. **D. Foam blowing agents**  EPA is proposing to change the listings for HFC - 134a, HFC - 365mfc, HFC - 245fa and blends thereof from acceptable to unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017 for all foam end - uses and applications except spray foam. Specific end - uses and applications include: 1 ) rigid poly urethane appliance foam; 2) flexible poly urethane; 3) rigid pol yurethane: commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; 4) rigid pol yurethane (slabstock and other); 5) rigid poly urethane and pol yi socyanurate laminated boardstock; 6) integral s kin poly urethane; 7) poly styrene (extruded sheet); 8) pol ys ty rene: extruded boardstock and billet; 9) polyolefin; and 10) phenolic insulation board and bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the f ollowing foam blowing agents in the following end - uses as of January

1, 2017: 1) Formacel B in pol ys ty rene (extruded boardstock and billet); 2) Formacel TI in rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, rigid pol yurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandw ich panels), rigid pol yurethane slabstock, integral skin polyurethane, poly styrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; 3) Formacel Z - 6 in rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, rigid poly

urethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid pol yurethane slabstock, poly styrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin pol yurethane, and poly styrene extruded sheet; 4) HFC - 143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock; and 5)

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 91 of 143 HFC - 134a and blends thereof in spray foam. **1. Background**  Foams are plastics (suc h as poly urethane or poly sty

rene) that are manufactured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the material’s structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely varied. The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation, cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, whic h can contribute to the foam’s ability

to insulate. Other foams are open - celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is blown, as for flexible foams. Historically , a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for these applications . CFCs and HCFCs were ty pically used given their favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for CFCs and section 605(b) - (c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products blown with class I and class II ODS: however, for foam pro ducts containing a class II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products as defined at 40 CFR 82.62. The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non - ODS blowing agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc), hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. In addition, low - GWP fluorinated compounds in use include HFO 1234ze(E) and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)). Blowing agents are approved on an end - use basis. The SNAP program considers the

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 92 of 143 following end - uses: a. Rigid poly

urethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in domestic refrigerators and freezers. b. Rigid poly

urethane (spray , commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated transport vehicles. c. Rigid poly

urethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for panels and pipes. d. Rigid poly

urethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock includes ins ulation for roofing and walls. e. Flexible poly

urethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles. f. Integral skin poly

urethane includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles. g. Polystyr ene (extruded sheet) includes foam for pa ckaging and buo yan cy or flotation. h. Polystyr ene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes. i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes. j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for roofing and walls.

**2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?**  EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and any blends containing these blowing agents for all foam end - uses and applications except for spray foam as of January

1, 2017. In addition, we propose to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the following end - uses: 1) Formacel B in poly styr ene (extruded boardstock and billet); 2) Formacel TIin rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, rigid polyur ethane (spray , commercial refrigeration, and

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 93 of 143 sandwich panels), rigid poly urethane slabstock, integral skin poly urethane, poly styrene extruded sheet and pol yolefin; 3) Formacel Z - 6 in rigid poly urethane appliance foam, rigid poly urethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid pol yurethane slabstock, polystyr ene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin polyurethane, and poly styr ene extruded sheet; and 4) HFC - 143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January 1, 2017

—that is, it would be prohibited to blow foam using these blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam products or products containing closed cell foam that contain any of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis f or doing so. Finally , we are providing a limited exception to the date when the unacceptability determinations apply

for certain military

and space applications where there is documentation that additional time is required to complete qualification testing .

**a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?**  Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The opportunity to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO 2 , and water in the 1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has allowed man y foam blowing end - uses and applications to transition from ODS, thus reducing the end - uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have been a low - GWP and cost - effective alternative available for large parts of the foam sector, particularly in flexible pol yurethane foam, polystyrene sheet foam, pol yurethane slabstock foam, poly urethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams. HCs also are used in most of the other end - uses, but less extensively than in these six end - uses. H owever,

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 94 of 143 flammability

of foam blowing agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray foam applications. Over the past ten ye ars both fluorinated and non - fluorinated alternatives have expanded both the list of options for specific foam uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are now used has also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been introduced during the past several ye ars. Man y end users have indicated interest in these newer alternatives, often to i mprove energy efficiency

of the foam products manufactured with the foam blowing agent. Production volumes for some of these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace with growing demand. For example, HFO - 1234ze(E) and trans - 1 - chloro 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene have recentl y been listed as acceptable. HFO - 1336mzz(Z) is currentl y under review b y EPA as a substitute foam blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end - uses whe re flammable agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for retooling facilities that use the blowing agents or that incorporate the foam product into another product will vary depending on the substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as household refrigerator manufacturers have already begun the testing of and transitioning to lower - GWP substitutes for foam blowing. **b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam**  **blowing agents?**

**i. Proposed**  **unacceptable agents** The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs ranging from 794 for HFC - 365mfc to 4470 for HFC - 143a, which is significantly higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes. The HFC blends that we are proposing to fin d unacceptable have GWPs

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 95 of 143 that vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z - 6, 740 to 1030 for blends of HFC - 365mfc with at least 4 % HFC - 245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial blends of HFC - 365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC - 227ea and the remainder HFC - 365mfc. All of the HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable consist of compounds that are non - ozone - depleting and are VOC - e xempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC - 134a, HFC - 143a, and HFC - 245fa can be used consistent with thei r respective AIHA WEEL s of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 ppm (8 - hr TWA) in the foam end - uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, Formacel TI , blends of HFC - 365m fc with at least 4% HFC - 245fa, and commercial blends of HFC - 365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC - 227ea and the remainder HFC - 365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC 365mfc and HFC - 143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z - 6 may be flammable depending on the exa ct composition, with the less flammable or nonflammable formulations having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as 1300 to 1500. In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential climate impact from foam blowing agents is the insulation valu e of the blown foam. This may matter for rigid insulation foams, where the foam blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid poly urethane appliance foam; rigid pol yurethane spray , commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid pol yurethane slabstock and other foam; polystyr ene extruded boardstock and billet; rigid pol yurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 96 of 143 emissions from power plants if the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency

and less need for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons and CO 2 may provide less insulation value to an insulation foam, pound for pound , than HFCs. Recent information on some of the newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as HFO - 1234ze(E) and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene, indicates these foam blowing agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and HFC predecessors and therefore may

be of interest to companies considering transition to more energy- efficient options. In addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value may still not impact the foam’s overall energy efficiency where thicker foam is used. Because of the variety of foam blowing agents available in each end - use, we believe that there are sufficient options that will not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions.

**ii. Rigid polyurethane applianc**  **e foam** For rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6 49 ), CO 2 , vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO - 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene are acceptable alternatives (in - kind and not - in - kind) with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing appliance foam consistent w ith required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluo roprop - 1 - ene contains chlorine and has measurable

49 These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane , and hexan e.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 97 of 143 ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 , 51 is roughl y one order of magnitude higher than the ODP of HFC - 134a which is considered to have zero ODP. 52 Trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene’s impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. 53 Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the flammable co mpounds in this end - use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC - 134a, Formacel TI, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and Formacel Z - 6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitut es mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**iii. Flexible polyurethane**  For flexible poly

urethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair cushions, shoe soles and other applications, acceptable substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), Exxsol blowing agents, CO 2 , ecomateTM (i.e., meth ylformate), HFC - 152a, and w ater with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed for flexible poly urethane, all have an ODP of zero. Toxicity

is not a significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for blowing flexible poly

urethane foam consistent wi th required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blo wing agents, HFC - 152a, and h ydrocarbons are flammable, and

50 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. 51 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trichloropropylene and trans - 1,2 - dichloroethylene in a three - dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys ., 10, 10867

– 10874, 2010. 52 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit . 53 Wang et al., 2011. Op . cit .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 98 of 143 the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - u se, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, and HFC - 365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**iv. Rigid polyurethane spray foam**  For rigid pol yurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, pipes, and buoyancy , acceptable substitutes include HFC - 245fa, commercial blends of HFC - 365mfc and HFC - 227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC - 227ea and the remainder HFC - 365mfc, blends of HFC 365m fc and at least 5% HFC - 245fa, CO 2 , water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene, with GWPs ranging from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be us ed for spray foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, onl y trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Flammability

is of particular concern in spray foam app lications, in part because they are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substances such as tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to assist end - users in addressing the flamma bility hazards of the flammable compounds in this end use ( Exxsol blowing agents and ecomateTM); however, these alternatives have limited, if any , use

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 99 of 143 in spray foams in the United States. 54 , 55 Flammability risks are more difficult to mitigate than in most other foam applications because, unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation can be provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the lower flammability

limit, and it is not practical to make all electrical fixtures explosi on proof when applying spray

foam in place in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC - 134a and blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are proposing that HFC - 245fa; commercial blends of HFC - 365mfc and HFC - 227e a, containing 7% to 13% HFC 227ea and the remainder HFC - 365mfc; and blends of HFC - 365mfc and at least 5% HFC - 245fa remain acceptable in spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce overall risk compared to the available flammable alternatives. The three HFC blends that remain acceptable reduce overall risks to human health and the environment compared to HFC - 134a and Formacel TI in this application because they have lower GWPs. **v. R** **igid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and**  **sandwich panels** For rigid pol yurethane used in commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy , and refrigerated transport vehicles, acceptable alternatives inc lude saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), ecomateTM, CO 2 , water, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO - 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives be cause they may be used for blowing foam for 54 UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. 55 UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC - 2010 - Assessment Report.pdf.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 100 of 143 commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid poly

urethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammabl e compounds in this end - use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In these applications, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, Formacel Z - 6 and Formacel B have significantl y higher GWPs than the other available s ubstitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. **vi. Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam**  For rigid pol yurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, ecomat eTM, Exxsol blowing agents, meth ylformate, HFO - 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be use d for blowing slabstock foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, onl y trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene has an ODP , and as discussed above for rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant . Of

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 101 of 143 the various options listed in th is paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulation s and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC - 134a, Formacel TI, HFC - 245fa, HFC 365mfc, and Formacel Z - 6 have significantl y higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and th e environment. **vii. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock**  For rigid pol yurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC - 152a, HFO 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing laminated boardstock consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only

trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid poly

urethane appliance foam, trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene’s impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire cod es. In this end - use, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, and HFC - 365mfc have significantl y higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 102 of 143 paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**viii. Polystyrene extruded shee**  **t** For pol ys ty

rene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), and HFC - 152a. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a signific ant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded poly styr ene foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds th at are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC - 152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, Formacel TI and Formacel Z - 6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**ix. Polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet**  For pol ys ty

rene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM (methyl formate), HFC - 152a, and HFO - 1234ze(E). These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for the se alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded poly styrene foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 1 03 of 143 exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC - 152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The f lammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC 365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z - 6 have significantly higher GW Ps than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**x. Integral skin polyurethane**  In integral skin poly

urethane, which includes foam in car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, ecomateTM, HFO - 1234ze(E), HFC - 152a, and trans - 1 - chloro 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral skin poly urethane foam consistent with required or recomme nded workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid pol yurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC - 152a, and hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability

hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequatel y addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC -

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 104 of 143 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**xi. Polyolefin foam**  For pol yolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3 - C6), CO 2 , water, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC - 152a, blends of HFC - 152a and saturated light HCs, HFO 1234ze(E), and trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trifluoroprop - 1 - ene are acceptable alternative s with GWPs that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for blowing pol yolefin foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs, HC blen ds, and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol bl owing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use , HFC - 134a, Formacel TI, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and Formacel Z - 6 have significantl y higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.

**xii. Phenolic insulatio**  **n board and bunstock** In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes insulation for roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes include saturated light HCs (C3 - C6),), CO 2 , 2 - chloropropane, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO - 1234ze(E), and HFC - 152a. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124 . Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives because

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 105 of 143 they may be used for blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exceptio n of 2 - chloropropane, h ydrocarbons, and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, 2 - chloropropane, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC 152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end - use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OS HA regulations and fire codes. In this end - use, HFC - 143a, HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, and HFC 365mfc have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereb y increasing overall risks to human health and the environment. For the foam end - uses listed above, both fluorinated and non - fluorinated substitutes are being used today

in the U.S.; EPA recognizes that the formulator and s ys tems house will consider other criteria including toxicity , flammability , and local air quality . However, given the range of substitutes available, we believe that there are other alternatives available for formulators or s ys tems houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than the HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be l isted as unacceptable. **c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing foams?** EPA is proposing to regulat e foam blowing agents contained in the cells of closed cell foams and proposes to consider these foams and products containing them to be subject to the proposed unacceptability determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act refers to “replacing” ODS with substitutes. In the case of the foam blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted unacceptability

determinations as referring solel y to replacing the foam blowing agent and have

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 106 of 143 not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may

not be used in or imported into the United States . H owever, products made with unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example, refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with the unacceptable blowing agent HCFC - 141b may still be imported into the United States, even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC - 141b as an unacceptable foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269 ). Under th is interpretation of our SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final the foam blowing agents we are proposing to find unacceptable would be prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but foam products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture made with these unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported. In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation for closed cell foams that would result in prohibiting both import and manufacture of products made with the blowing agents proposed to be unacceptable. This approach would have an effect simi lar to the earlier nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam blowing agents, prohibiting import and distribution of such products. For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained in cells after the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end - uses that contain closed - cell foams include rigid pol yurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane: spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; rigid poly urethane (slabstock and other); rigid poly urethane and pol yi socyanurate laminated boardstock; poly sty rene (extruded sheet); poly styrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing end - uses containing open cell foams include flexible poly urethane and integr al skin poly

urethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent is not retained and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open cell product blown with an unacceptable

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 107 of 143 foam blowing agent (or products containing such an open cell foam) woul d not contain any of that agent when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would still retain some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to appl y to products with closed cell foam since the product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus is replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing a gent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so. **d. When would the listings change?** Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for foam blowing agents as of January

1, 2017. Based on information concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA believes this date allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a differe nt foam blowing agent. However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of January 1, 2016. The foam industry was able to convert from HCFC - 142b and HCFC - 22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA’s proposed unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the unacceptable HCFCs must transition by

March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA also provided an additional 18 months for this transition for marine flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1, 2010, for a transition away from HCFC - 22 and HCFC - 142b in extruded poly styrene foam boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is requesting comment on using January 1, 2017 as the date on which foam must not be blown using HFC - 134a, HFC - 365mfc, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 143a and blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6. We are also

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 108 of 143 seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed b y J anuary 1, 2016. Inparticular, we request comment on whether these dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the foam product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there are any specific foam end - uses or app lications that may require additional time and, if so, how long and why . Based on this information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing agents in specific end - uses or could provide a different date for use to be unacceptable.

**e. Na**  **rrowed Use Limits for military or space**  **- and aeronautics**  **- related**  **applications** EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability determination for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or space - and aeronautics - related applications. EPA is also proposing that the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space - and aeronautics application would need to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of their anal ys is. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military , there are several unique performance requirements related to weapon s ys tems that require extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFC - containing foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives b y the proposed January 1, 2017 date, in a very

small number of cases, the timeframes associated with testing and qualifications for weapo n s ys tems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower - GWP alternatives may not be available at this time in certain specialty applications with unique military requirements such as undersea; aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare sy stems. In the case of

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 109 of 143 space - and aeronautics - related applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, including certain mission - critical applications such as foam blowing for which appropriate substitutes have not yet been identified. Past experience indicates that transitions away from CFC - and HCFC blown foams in similar applications took several years due to the challenging operational environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with human - rated space flight sy stems. Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category , users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to unde rtake 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. The Agency

has guidance describing additional documentation users should include for narrowed use applications. [Cite to name of guidance and where it is available to the public] This information includes descriptions of:

• Process or product in which the substitute is needed;

• Substitutes examined and rejected;

• Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or

• Anticipated date other substitutes will be availa ble and projected time for switching. EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for military or space - and aeronautics - related applications In addition, EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 110 of 143 this narrowed use limitation, re cognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in advance of 2022, the Agency

may need to revisit and adjust the end date.

**f. Summary**  EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam end - uses. In particular, EPA is interested in whether there are specific uses other than spray foam that require the use of HFC - 134a, HFC - 365mfc, HFC - 245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B, Formacel TI, or Formacel Z - 6 for reasons of fire safet y or technical feasibility. We request comment on whether closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams should be subject to the unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation would otherwise onl y appl y to the use of the foam blowing agent. We also seek comment on whether the Agency

should consider use of the foam blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an appropriate length of time for transition and whether there should be different dates for certain foam end - use s due to technical challenges that may exist for some foam end - uses but not al l . EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe propos ed in this action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed exception for military

or space - and aeronautics - related applications as described above. **VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?**  The requirements of the SNAP program appl y to both exports and imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in whether the listing decisions, if

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 111 of 143 finalized as proposed, would apply to their products. EPA has previously responded to comments about the applicability

of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most recently , in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being established in that rule). EPA stated that: Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person introducing a subst itute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory , possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory , possession or the D istrict of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory , possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry

into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This definition applies to any

appliances produced in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76 FR 78846) Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to appliances being exported. The range of sectors and end - uses covered b y the SNAP program varies. Some end - uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, includes appliances charged b y OEMs and appliances typicall y field - charged. Some appliances charged b y OEMs are herm eticall y sealed and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from products such as aerosols

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 112 of 143 or foams because of the potential for servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low - GWP alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to transition to low - GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several ye ars earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have not indicated any specific plan to transition to low - GWP alternatives for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC - 134a would be listed as unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability

listing would include MVACs that will be exported. EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. However, EPA understands th e concerns for proper infrastructure for servicing appliances in markets outside the U.S. EPA believes there is ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure to be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this top ic , including the applicability

of the SNAP program to products destined for export . **VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?**  EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain end - uses because the three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in CAA section 605(a) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A . Additionally , the nonessential products ban under CAA section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with th ese three HCFCs. We believe it is important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these HCFCs may

be used when another program under title VIof the CAA would prevent such use. Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs addressed in th is rule are listed as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 113 of 143 suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors. This in addition to the proposed unaccept ability of HCFC - containing refrigerants in MVAC sy stems (see section V.B. of this preamble). **A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings**  **for the three**  **HCFCs and**  **in which end -**  **uses?** EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC - 141b, HCFC - 142b, and HCFC - 22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable in all sectors 56 except refrigeration and air conditioning. EPA is not addressing HCFC use for refrigeration and air conditioning because CAA section 605(a) and our implementing regulations allows for continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. We are proposing that the listings would be modified 60 day s following issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal. **B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?**  EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other Title VI regulations, specificall y section 605 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 61 0 and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C .

**1. Alignment**  **of SNAP listings for the three HCFCs with**  **regulations implementing**  **CAA sections 605 and 610** CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce or the use of an y cl ass II substance as of January 1, 2015, unless such substance: (1) has been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) is used and entirely

consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other 56 T hese three HCFCs have previously been listed as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 114 of 143 chemicals; (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to January 1, 2020; or (4 ) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c). Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the prohibitions on use and introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC - 141b, HCFC - 22, and HCFC - 142b that has not been used, recovered, and recycled . See 40 CFR 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration and air conditioning uses, EPA’s implementing regulations prohibit the use and introduction into interstate commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, recovered, and recycled, in equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. EPA’s proposal to modify the listings for HCFC - 141b, HCFC - 22, and HCFC - 142b, including blends that contain these HCFCs, in various applications is consistent with the accelerated dates contained in our implementing regulations and covers end - uses where these HCFCs have previously been listed as acceptable as aerosols, refrigerants, foam blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale and distribution, as well as offer for sale and distribution, in inters tate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized dispensers containing a class II substance ( i.e. , HCFCs), and plastic foam products containing or manufactured with a class II substance , with limited exceptions . 57 This statutory prohibition took effect on January

1, 1994. Consequently , most foams and aerosols have not used HCFCs since 1994.

57 Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and also authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific circumstances. For the complete list of exceptions, see EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 115 of 143 Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and interstate commerce prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.1 5(g), EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP listings for HCFCs other than HCFC - 141b, - 142b, and - 22 and blends containing those substances at this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later rulemaking as appropriate. **2. Anticipated**  **e ffects**  EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant effect on the use of HCFC - 141b, - 142b, and - 22 since existing regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless used, recovered, and recycled) in almost all end - uses in the United States (see 40 CFR 82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not aware of anyone using recovered, recycled or reclaimed HCFC - 22, HCFC - 141b and HCFC - 142b. In addition, as a result of the use restrictions in CAA secti on 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and distribution restrictions on certain products containing or manufactured with these substances in CAA section 610 and 40 CFR part 82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition to n on ODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have been replaced b y HCs, HFO 1234ze, roll - ons, pump spray s, and HFC - 152a, excluding some niche technical applications that still rely on HCF Cs not addressed in this action . HCFCs in foam blow ing agents have largel y been replaced b y, among other things, meth ylformate, HCs, Solstice - 1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide ; any

remaining HCFC use in this sector is limited to HCF Cs not addressed in this action . For these reasons, we believe it is technical ly feasible for sources to comply with the proposed changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 day s of a final rule issued consistent with this proposal. EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC - 141b, - 142b, - 22,

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 116 of 143 and blends containing these substances. EPA is particularl y interested in comments on both the scope of the proposed modifications and the timing. **VIII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?**  The requirements of the SNAP program appl y to both exports and imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in whether the listing decisions, if finalized as proposed, would apply to their products. EPA has previously responded to comments a bout the applicability

of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most recently , in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have larger charge si zes than those being sold in the United States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being established in that rule). EPA stated that: Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory , possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory , possession or the Dis trict of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory , possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry

into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. This definition applies to any

appliances produced in the United States , including appliances that will be exported. (76 FR 78846) Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to appliances being

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 117 of 143 exported. The range of sectors and end - uses covered b y the SNAP pro gram varies. Some end - uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning sector, includes appliances charged b y OEMs and appliances typicall y field - charged. Some appliances charged b y OEMs are hermeticall y sealed and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances di ffer from products such as aerosols or foams because of the potential for servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low - GWP alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to transition to low - GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several ye ars earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have not indicated any specific plan to transition to low - GWP alternatives for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC - 134a would be listed as unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability

listing would include MVACs that will be exported. EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports. However, EPA understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for servicing appliances in markets outsi de the U.S. EPA believes there is ample time between now and model year 202 1 for such infrastructure to be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this topic. **IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**  A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a

“ significant regulatory

action. ” Itraises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set f orth in the Executive Order. Accordingl y, EPA

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 118 of 143 submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and an y changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. EPA condu ct ed an anal ysis 58 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities , as further discussed in the section C below. The anal ys is also considered that, specific to refrigerants used in air conditioning s ys tems for newl y manufactured light - duty vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a transition to alternative refrigerants and there are costs associated with those substitutions . B ased on recent information in manufacturers’ product plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to meet the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC - 134a beyond MY 2021 for a limited number of their models . However, we believe there is time for any such manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments . These manu facturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal (representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC - 134a b y MY 2021 ) , but there would be environmental benefits in the form of increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC sy stems which wo uld not otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of MVAC refrigerant. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an y new information collection burden. This proposed rule is an Agency

determination. It contains no new requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previousl y approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the

58 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High GWP Alternatives, 2014.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 119 of 143 provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060

–0226. This Information Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting and recordkeeping activities pursu ant to SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test marketing activity , recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act ( RFA ) generall y requires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility

analy sis of any

rule subject to notice - and - comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the A gency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small busine sses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity

is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 1 3 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city , county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not - for - profit enterprise which is indepe ndentl y owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After conducting an analy sis 59 that considered the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, Icertify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

59 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High GWP Alternatives, 2014.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 120 of 143 substantial number of small entities . The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HFCs , if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, pol yurethane , and poly styr ene foams . The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HCFCs , if finalized as pro p osed, would affect manufacturers of aerosols, foams, sol vent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives, coatings, and inks . This rule’s provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration and air conditioning technicians, but they would indirectly

affect technicians servicing motor vehicle air c onditioning sy stems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending machines where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner, purchases servicing equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required b y this rule are already occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social responsibility

initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledg e concerning HFC refrigerants ), and because man y of the still - acceptable alternatives are already used for these refrigeration or air conditioning equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HFC - 134a as a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC 134a as a foam blowing agent in various pol yurethane foam s ). Most of the business es regulated under this rule are not small businesses (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About 500,000 small businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99% of small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be expected to experience zero

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 121 of 143 compliance costs. EPA continues to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcomes comments on iss ues related to such impacts , in particular technical challenges , including time to transition, that may exist for some small entities but not all . D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531

– 1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule related to prohibiting certain substitutes, including HFC - 134a, R - 404A and R - 507A, would require new equipment to be manufactured using other available options but would not require changes to existing equipment that is already manufactured or purchased . Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UM RA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantl y or uniquel y affect small governments. This regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism T his 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 o f government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directl y to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 1313 2, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 122 of 143 comments on this proposed action from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination w ith Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal gover nment and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA specificall y solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal official s. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children f rom Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed b y 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 env ironment, primaril y due to their high global warming potential . The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future generations. The public is invited to submit comments or identify

peer - reviewed studies and data that assess effects of earl y life exposure to the alternatives addressed in this action. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 123 of 143 This action is not a “ significant energy action ” as defined in Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply , distribution, or use of energy . Aerosol uses are not related to the supply , distribution, or use of energy . For the end - use s that are related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air conditioning, a number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that are proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely

to have any

adverse energy

effects. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( “NTTAA ” ), Public Law 104

– 113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g ., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule does not i nvolve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and p ermitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 124 of 14 3 environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority population s and low income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionatel y high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low - income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low - income population. This proposed rule, if finalized, would pro hibit a number of substances with ODPs or high GWP s . The reduction in ODS and GWP emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate benefits. **IX. References**  This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I .B.1. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronically

through the Federal Docket Management Sy stem, Docket # EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 1 4 - 0 198 . Akerman, Nancy

H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013. CCAC, 2012 . Technology Forum on Climate - Friendly Alternatives in Commercial Refrigeration . Meeting Summary . 8 December 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/FINAL%20REPORT%20Com mercial%20Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRIReport. This document is accessible at: http://assets.coca - colacompany .com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012 - 2013 - gri - report.pdf

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 125 of 143 Consumer Specialty

Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey- 61st Annual Products Survey . April 15, 2012. Daimler, “Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,” Stephen Gardner, BNA Inc., Dail y Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This document is accessible at http://news.bna.com/deln/DEL NWB/split_display .adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennot allissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at http://eur - l ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM. Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 1 3 , 2014. EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act. Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. This document is accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000 - 2012. This data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. EPA, Greenchill. “Advanced Refrigeration”. This document is accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf EPA Memorandum: “Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition”, Tad Wy sor, April 2014.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 126 of 143 Honey well, 2014. Ae rosols Overview - Honey well Solstice® Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014. IC F, 201 4 a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry . Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . May , 201 4 . IC F, 201 4 b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry . Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . May , 201 4 . IC F, 201 4 c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry . Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . May , 201 4 . IC F, 201 4 d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry . Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . May , 201 4 . IC F, 201 4 e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground L evel Ozone Concentrations. February , 20 14 . IC F, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Anal ys is for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High - GWP Alternatives. April, 2014. IC F, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost - Analy sis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High - GWP Alternatives . June, 2014. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L ., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html . IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scienc e Basis. Contribution of W orking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 127 of 143 Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery t, M.Tignor and H.L . Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate Sys tem Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J. - F. L amarque, H. L iao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Phy sical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G. - K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC/TEAP , 2005 . Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate Sy stem: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NI S T Conference 2012. Nelson, Gabe “Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate” Automobile News, December 30, 2013. This document is accessible at http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto - the - idea NOAA . This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans - 1 - chloro - 3,3,3 - trichloropropylene and trans - 1,2 - dichloroethylene in a three - dimensional

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 128 of 143 model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys ., 10, 10867

– 10874, 2010. UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Option s Committee , 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC - 2010 - Assessment - Report.pdf. UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical L ink in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Sy nthesis Report. November, 2011. This document i s accessible at http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf. UNEP, 201 3. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskFor ce%20XXIV - 7 - May2013.pdf . Veld ers, 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: Analy ses of tCFP’s Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of I llinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. Weissler, Paul, “A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R - 1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,” Automotive Engineering International, April 2, 2013. This document is accessible at http://articles.sae.org/11870/

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 129 of 143 WMO, 2010. World Meteorological Organization. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010 , Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project

—Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 130 of 143 **Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain**  **Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program** Proposed Rule Page 129 of 142 pages List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air polluti on control, In corporation by

reference, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric o zone layer.

Dated: _____________________________________________

___________________________________________________ Gina McCarth y, Administrator.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 131 of 143 For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to be amended as follows: **PART 82 -**  **PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE** 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601 , 7671 - 7671q. Subpart G

– Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 2. Amend Subpart G b y adding Appendix T to read as follows: APPENDIX T TO SUBPART G OFPART 82 - UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTIT UTES AND SUBSTITUTES SUBJECT TO USE RESTRICTIONS LISTED IN THE [ **INSE RT DATE OF PUBLICATI**  **ON OF FINAL RULE IN THE**  **FEDERAL REGISTER ]**  FINAL RULE , EFFECTIVE [ **INSERT DATE 60**  **DAYS AFTER PUBLICATI ON OF**  **FINAL RULE IN THE FE DERAL REGISTER**  ]. A EROSOLS : U NACCEPTABLE SUBSTITU TES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information Propellants HFC - 125 Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. HFC - 125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354 - 33 - 6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2 - pentafluoropropane. HFC - 125 has a high GWP of 3 , 500. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. Propellants HC FC - 22 and

HCFC - 142b Unacceptable effective

**[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF**  **FINAL RULE]** Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin HCFC - 22 and HCFC - 142b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These propellants have ozone depletion potential s of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively . Solvents HCFC - 141b Unacceptable effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF**  **FINAL RULE]** Use or introduction into interstate commerce of vi rgin HCFC - 141b for aerosols is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC - 141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 .

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 132 of 143 S UBSTITUTES ACCEPTABL E SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS End - use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information Propellants HFC - 134a Acceptable subject to use conditions As of January 1, 2016,

a cceptable only for use in :  metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs  cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics  lubricants for electrical equipment or electronics  sprays for aircraft maintenance  pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft , in total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower - GWP propellants mo ld release agents  lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics  duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes  document preservation sprays  wo und car e sprays topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation

products for removing bandage adhesives from skin HFC - 134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811 - 97 - 2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoropropane. HFC 134a has a relatively high GWP of 1 , 430. Use is allowed for the specified uses because of the greater technical and safety demands in th ese application s compared to other aerosol applications . It is prohibited to use aerosol products other than those specified here using HFC - 134a that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 133 of 143 Propellants HFC - 227ea Acceptable subject to use conditions As of January 1, 2016,

acceptable only for use in metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease HFC - 227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 431 - 89 - 0 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,3,3,3 - heptafluoropropane. HFC - 227ea has a relatively high GWP of 3 , 220. Use is allowed for metered dose inhalers because of the greater technical and safety demands in this application com pared to other aerosol applications . It is prohibited to use aerosol products other than metered dose inhalers using HFC - 227ea that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date. REF RI GERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING U NACCEPTABLE SUBSTITU TES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit) R- 404A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 R- 404A is a blend, by weight, of

44% HFC - 125, 4% HFC - 134a, and 52% HFC - 143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the envir onment. Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit) R- 507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 R- 507A is a blend, by weight, of

50% HFC - 125 and 50% HFC - 143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)(new) HFC - 227ea, R- 407B, R421B, R- 422A, R - 422C, R422D, R- 428A, R- 434A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 These refrigerants have GWPs

ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Retail food refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)(retrofit) R- 407B, R- 421B, R- 422A, R- 422C, R - 422D, R- 428A, R- 434A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 These refrigerants have GWPs

ranging from 2,729 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 134 of 143 Retail food refrigeration (st and alone units only) (ne w only) HFC - 134a Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 HFC - 134a has a Chemical Abstracts

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811 - 97 - 2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoropropane. HFC - 134a has a relatively high GW P of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Retail food refrigeration - (stand alone units only) (ne w only) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- 407A, R- 407B, R- 407C, R - 407F, R- 410A, R - 410B, R- 417A, R- 421A, R - 421B, R- 422A, R- 422B, R- 422C, R - 422D, R- 424A, R - 426A, R - 428A, R- 434A, R - 437A, R - 438A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation), RS - 44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR- 03. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 These refrigerants have GWPs

ranging from approxi mately 550 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment.

Vending machines (new and retrofit) R- 404A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 R- 404A is a blend, by weight, of

44% HFC - 125, 4% HFC - 134a, and 52% HFC - 143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Vending machines (new and retrofit) R- 507A Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 R- 507A is a blend, by weight, of

50% HFC - 125 and 50% HFC - 143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Vending machines (new only) HFC - 134a Unaccep table as of January 1, 2016 HFC - 134a has a Chemical Abstracts

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811 - 97 - 2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoropropane. HFC - 134a has a relatively high GWP of 1 , 430. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Vending machines (new only) FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON

B, KDD6, R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- 407C, R- 410A, R - 410B, R- 417A, R- 421A, R - 422B, R- 422C, R- 422D, R - 426A, R - 437A, R- 438A, RS - 24 (2002 formulation), SP34E. Unacceptable as of January 1, 2016 These refrigerants have GWPs

ranging from approximately 550 to 3,0 85 . Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 135 of 143 M otor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light - duty trucks only) HFC - 134a Unacceptable as of Model Year (MY) 2021 HFC - 134a has a Chemical Abstracts

Service Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811 - 97 - 2 and it is also known by the nam e 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoropropane. HFC - 134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light - duty trucks only) R- 406A, R - 414A (HCFC Blend Xi, GHG - X4), R 414B (HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG - X5, HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG - HP) Unacceptable as of MY 20 17 These refrigerants all contain

HCFCs. They have GWPs ranging from 1 , 480 to 2 , 340 and ODPs ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light - duty trucks only) R- 416A (FRIGC FR - 12, HCFC Blend Beta) Unacceptable as of MY 20 17 This blend has a relatively high

GWP of approximately 1 , 080 and an ODP of approximately 0.008. Other substitutes are available for this end use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light - duty trucks only) SP34E Unacceptable as of MY 20 17 This blend has a relatively high

GWP of approximately 1 , 410. Other substitutes are available for this end us e with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Motor vehicle air conditioning (new equipment in passenger cars and light - duty trucks only) R- 426A (RS - 24, new formulation) Unacceptable as of MY 20 17 This blend has a relatively high

GWP of approximately 1 , 510. Other substitutes are available for this en use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. F OAM BLOWING AGENTS SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIM IT S End - use Substitute Decision Narrowed Use Limits Further Information

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 136 of 143 Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users ar e required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Polyurethane: Spray HFC - 134a and

Formacel TI Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technical ly 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 projec ted time for switching.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 137 of 143 Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Flexible Polyurethane HFC - 134a,

HFC - 2 45fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users ar e required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 138 of 143 Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other HFC - 1 34a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits

. Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users ar e required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made t o ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance . Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 139 of 143 Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users ar e required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel B, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have bee n 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 co mp liance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 140 of 143 Integral Skin Polyurethane HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits

. Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Polyolefin HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245f

a, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascert ain 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 o ther substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 141 of 143 Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock HFC - 143a,

HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof Acceptable Subject

to Narrowed Use Limits Acceptable until

January 1, 2022 only in military or space and aeronautics related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Users are required to

document and retain the results of their technical investigation of alternatives for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. Information should include descriptions of:  Process or product in which the substitute is needed;  Substitutes examined and rejected;  Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or  Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. U NACCEPTABLE SUBSTITU TES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information All Blends of

HCFC - 141b Unacceptable

effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS**  **AFTER PUBLICATION**  **OF FINAL RULE]**  HCFC - 141b ha s an ozone depletion potential of 0.11

under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found HCFC - 141b un acceptable in all foam blowing end use s (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). HCFC - 141b has an ODP of 0.11. Polyolefin HCFC - 22,

HCFC - 142b , and blends thereof Unacceptable

effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS**  **AFTER PUBLICATION**  **OF FINAL RULE]**  Use or introduction into interstate commerce of

virgin HCFC - 22 and HCFC - 142b for foam blowing is prohibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, recovered, and recycled . These compounds have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065 respectively under the Montreal Protocol. Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance HFC - 134a ,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

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

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 142 of 143 Rigid Polyurethane: Spray HFC - 134a and

Formacel TI Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment , including lower GWP . Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels HFC - 134a ,

HFC - 245 fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

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

Flexible Polyurethane HFC - 134a ,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substi tutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment , including lower GWP . Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and Other HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock HFC - 134a ,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc and blends thereof Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel TI , and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and Billet HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof, Formacel B, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Integral Skin Polyurethane HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human heal th and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP.

### Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	EO12866	and

13563	Interagency	Review.	Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 143 of 143 Polyolefin HFC - 134a,

HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z - 6 Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

lower overall risk to human health and the environment Other substitutes are available for this end - use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment, including lower GWP. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock HFC - 143a,

HFC - 134a, HFC - 245fa, HFC - 365mfc, and blends thereof Unacceptable as of

January 1, 2017 except where allowed under a narrowed use limit. Other substitutes are available for this end - use with

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

F IRE S UPPRESSION AND E XPLOSION P ROTECTION A GENTS

U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information Total Flooding HCFC - 22 Unacceptable effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS**  **AFTER PUBLICATION**  **OF FINAL RULE]**  Use or introduction into interstate commerce of

virgin HCFC - 22 for total flooding fire suppression and explosion pr otection is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055 . S TER ILANTS U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information Sterilants Blends containing

HCFC - 22 Unacceptable

effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS**  **AFTER PUBLICATION**  **OF FINAL RULE]**  Use or introduction into interstate commerce of

virgin HCFC - 22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. HCFC - 22 has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055 . ADHESIVES , C OATINGS AND INKS U NACCEPTABLE S UBSTITUTES End - use Substitute Decision Further Information Adhesives, coatings and inks HCFC - 141b and

blends thereof Unacceptable

effective **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS**  **AFTER PUBLICATION**  **OF FINAL RULE]**  Use or introduction into interstate commerce of

virgin HCFC - 141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is prohibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical h as an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 .