[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46126-46166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18494]
[[Page 46125]]
Vol. 79
Wednesday,
No. 151
August 6, 2014
Part VII
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46126]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198; FRL-9910-19-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS18
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to
change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously
listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other
substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk
overall to human health and/or the environment. Specifically, this
action proposes to modify the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons
in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air
conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also proposes use
conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those
uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available
that reduce overall risk to human health and/or the environment. This
action also proposes to change the status from acceptable to
unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of
production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2014. EPA is
planning to hold a public hearing to take place on August 27, 2014,
starting at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East (entrance from 1201
Constitution Avenue), 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-2014-0198, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation 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, email address: [email protected]. Notices and
rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a
determination?
H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP
determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?
A. Summary of Petitions
B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions
V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?
A. Aerosols
1. Background
2. Aerosols Today
3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
a. What other alternatives are available?
i. Consumer Aerosols
ii. Technical Aerosols
iii. Medical Aerosols
b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
c. When would the modified listings apply?
[[Page 46127]]
d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-
Duty Motor Vehicles
1. Background
2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty
motor vehicles?
3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
1. Background
2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food
refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)?
a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone
equipment?
a. New Stand-alone Equipment
b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment
4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
a. New Vending Machines
b. Retrofit Vending Machines
5. When would the listings change?
6. Applicability to Service of Existing Equipment
7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
8. What other options is EPA considering?
a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
b. New Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other end-uses
D. Foam Blowing Agents
1. Background
2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the
substitute foam blowing agents?
i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
iii. Flexible Polyurethane
iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels
vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated
Boardstock
viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
xi. Polyolefin Foam
xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products
containing foams?
d. When would the listings change?
e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-
related Applications
f. Summary
VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?
A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the
three HCFCs and in which end-uses?
B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?
1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With
Regulations Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
2. Anticipated Effects
VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of
certain substitutes \1\ previously found acceptable under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. EPA is proposing to
modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and
air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are
available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per
the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection
between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This
action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across
all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any
specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA
recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins
(HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide
(CO2)) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead,
consistent with SNAP's history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA
is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of
other available and potentially available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The terms ``substitutes'' and ``alternatives'' are used
interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
(1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2016
HFC-125 as unacceptable;
HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in
consumer aerosols); and
HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year (MY)
2021; and
The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
(3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems,
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
(4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
and R-434A as unacceptable.
(5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as
unacceptable.
(6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses;
HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as
[[Page 46128]]
acceptable, except for spray foam applications; and
The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
In general, EPA is proposing modifications to the listings based on
the SNAP program's comparative risk framework. The sections that follow
provide the analyses supporting the proposed listing modifications and
the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of these
substitutes. In addition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on
this rule including market characterizations, analyses of costs
associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with
the transition to alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The emissions reductions from this
proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are
available in the docket for commenters to review. EPA is planning to
prepare a consolidated analysis document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols
Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May, 2014.
\3\ ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams
Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May, 2014.
\4\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
\5\ ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
\6\ ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as
blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable
in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion
protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These
modifications reflect the existing regulations promulgated under CAA
sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and C.
The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a
final rule promulgating this proposal.
B. Does this action apply to me?
Potential entities that may be affected by this proposed rule
include:
Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................. 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors
Industry................................. 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325612 Polishes and Other Sanitation Goods
Industry................................. 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
Industry................................. 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and
Preparation Manufacturing
Industry................................. 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
Industry................................. 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)
Manufacturing
Industry................................. 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing
Industry................................. 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
Industry................................. 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Industry................................. 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Retail................................... 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and
Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers
Retail................................... 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers
Retail................................... 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
Stores
Retail................................... 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience)
Stores
Retail................................... 445120 Convenience Stores
Retail................................... 44521 Meat Markets
Retail................................... 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets
Retail................................... 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets
Retail................................... 445291 Baked Goods Stores
Retail................................... 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores
Retail................................... 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores
Retail................................... 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores
Retail................................... 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores
Retail................................... 44711 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
Retail................................... 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
Retail................................... 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores
Services................................. 72111 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
Services................................. 72112 Casino Hotels
Retail................................... 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
Retail................................... 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants
Retail................................... 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
Retail................................... 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated
by this action. If you have any questions about whether this action
applies to a particular entity,
[[Page 46129]]
consult the person listed in the above section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Do not submit confidential information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
Follow directions-The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.
D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble
of this document:
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH 4--Methane
CO2--Carbon dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon dioxide equivalent
DOE--United States Department of Energy
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--United States Food and Drug Administration
FR--Federal Register
GHG--Greenhouse gas
Gt--Gigaton
GWP--Global warming potential
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
ICR--Information collection request
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MDI--metered dose inhaler
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioning
N2--Nitrogen
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM--Original equipment manufacturer
ODP--Ozone depletion potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible exposure limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbons
ppm--Parts per million
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
REL--Recommended exposure limit
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SF 6-- Sulfur hexafluoride
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
TLV--Threshold limit value
TWA--Time-weighted average
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--Volatile organic compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
II. How does the SNAP program work?
A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP
program?
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred to as EPA or the
Agency) to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-
depleting substances. This program is known as the Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612
are:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable subject to use
conditions,'' and ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits''
substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.
3. Petition Process
Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-day Notification
Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist
users of class I and II substances in identifying and
[[Page 46130]]
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable
substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart
G). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and
safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies
to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to
introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\9\ it may also apply
to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end-users \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 days after a complete
submission has been provided to the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ``interstate commerce'' means
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
\10\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use
conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable.\11\ 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions
can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within
the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used.
Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used
only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found
to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the
rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
\12\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other available
substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to
use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting
the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the
Clean Air Act and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are
available for their specific application. EPA describes these
substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' A person
using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in
applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use
limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA
and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \13\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In addition to acceptable commercially available
substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available
substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety,
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
In contrast, EPA publishes ``notices of acceptability'' to notify
the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no
restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does
not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list
substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such
listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a
substitute.
Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
[[Page 46131]]
Administration (OSHA)). The ``further information'' classification does
not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the
use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding
under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply
all statements in the ``further information'' column in their use of
these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to
sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the
statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make
significant changes in existing operating practices.
D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and based on section 612, are
discussed below.
Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework
The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone
depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well
as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found
acceptable
For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk
than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. Where
risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other substitutes,
EPA may find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or
narrowed use limits that would manage the risk.
Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse
EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few
substitutes for each 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 potentially available alternatives.
Evaluate risks by use
Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
Provide the regulated community with information as soon
as possible
The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable,
acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain lists of
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies
The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that
company's products.
Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted
In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes
that address any potential environmental impacts that may result from
the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For
example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use
of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP
program takes existing regulations under other programs into account
when reviewing substitutes.
E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP
program?
EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at
Sec. 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability,
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information
including ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential
(GWP), toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure.
When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the
potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The
SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year
integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects.
Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure
assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which
workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors
may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are
based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available.
Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases
including:
(1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
(2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;
(3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.
Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to
assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to
substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as:
(1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure;
(2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic
effects on the general population;
(3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the
general population.
When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace
Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association, or Threshold Limit Values set by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for
occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not
already established, then EPA derives these values following the
Agency's peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure
[[Page 46132]]
information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk
characterizations.
Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a
safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability
risk using data on:
(1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/
combustibility classifications);
(2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
(3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by
independent laboratories; and
(4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also
examines other potential environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and
local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged
to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes
are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a
potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant
(under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act subtitle C regulations.
Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other available
substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current
overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially
available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by
SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have
evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human
health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.
F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a
substance from either list. The second means is through the
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by section 612(e) of the CAA for
producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all
other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of
the Act to implement section 612(c).
Finally, we interpret the section 612 mandate to find substitutes
acceptable or unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own
to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists. In determining
whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider
whether there are other available substitutes that pose a lower risk to
human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a
listing of a substitute we consider new data not considered at the time
of our original listing decision, including information on new
substitutes and new information on substitutes previously reviewed.
G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a
determination?
As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as
unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are
other substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition to
comparing the human health and environmental effects of other available
or potentially available substitutes for the same end-uses, we also
compare substitutes to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) and under the CAA.
The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and
presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP
program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and
human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the
particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions
based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA
has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for
limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions.
In May 2013 EPA stated:
EPA recognizes that during the nearly two- decade long history
of the SNAP program, new alternatives and new information about
alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, EPA considers new
information and improved understanding of the risk factors for the
environment and human health in the context of the available or
potentially available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035)
It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has
expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse
characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When
the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for
consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. While the SNAP
program's initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human
health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few
substitutes to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the
class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e.,
HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and
were only an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the
section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use
Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP program did not convey
permanence.
Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 18 rules and 28 notices expanding the menu of options for all
SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today are to a broader range of
options--both chemical and non-chemical--than at the inception of the
SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown
during the history of the program. This varies by sector and by end-
use.
In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regards to that information, many of the
substitute-specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone
comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of
climate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our
evaluation framework, but along with all of our review criteria the
amount and quality of information has expanded.
To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information and
[[Page 46133]]
improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health.
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to
unacceptable based on information made available to EPA after a listing
was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the
refrigerant known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all
refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. EPA previously listed this
blend as an acceptable substitute in various end-uses within the
refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275).
Based on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in
the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT-31 from the list of acceptable
substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air
conditioning end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861).
Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007 when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are
ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
available substitutes that posed lower risk at the time of EPA's
listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and
end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of
the expanded availability of alternative substitutes with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in these end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use
for a limited time to ensure that they could adjust their manufacturing
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes.
H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program?
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for
administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete
chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP determinations?
GWP, along with other criteria, is a factor in the overall
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change
have become better understood.
On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two
distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act \14\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endangerment Finding: the current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere -- CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) -- threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of
these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and welfare.
Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\15\ Though they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact is very strong because they can remain
trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ years impacting climate change
20,000 times more powerfully than CO2, and their emissions
are projected to accelerate over the next several decades if left
unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing
more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are
increasing 10-15% annually.\16\ At that rate, emissions are projected
to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\17\ HFCs are rapidly accumulating
in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most
abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012,
and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and
16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively.18 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New
York).
\16\ UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.
\17\ Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
\18\ Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
\19\ NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4
to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 2050 \20\, which is comparable to the
drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between
1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the
atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W
m\2\. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the
expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of
CO2 since 2000, according to the IPCC's Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the significance
of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all
GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2
emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions
scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based
on the IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46134]]
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?
A. Summary of Petitions
EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain
acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. The first
petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation
Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from
the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS and move it to the list of
unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequently
clarified that they were requesting this change for the use of HFC-134a
in new passenger cars and light-duty trucks, non-medical aerosols, and
for certain refrigeration and foam blowing end-uses. In support of
their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in
motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed
that these other substitutes present much lower risks to human health
and environment than HFC-134a.
On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in
new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was
incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA noted in its response that,
at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment
rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition,
noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many
factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction
of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and
potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate
substitutes. This proposed rule responds to the aspect of that petition
that we found complete.
On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated
that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program's
evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes
are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC-134a
and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses
where EPA found CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of
the Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for moving HFC-134a and
HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes
be based on the ``most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of
the'' acceptable substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that
initial approvals of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the
1990s and were based on the assessment made then that (1) HFC-134a does
not contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric
lifetime were close to those of other substitutes that had been
determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) HFC-134a is not
flammable, and its toxicity is low.\23\ The petitioner stated that the
analysis used in the listing decisions may have been appropriate in the
1990s but was no longer reflected accurately given the range of other
available or potentially available substitutes at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the
petitioner requested that the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban be
extended to HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends for aerosols and pressurized
dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty
products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string,
artificial snow, specialty paints and excrement ``poop'' freeze); noise
horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event noise horns,
personal safety noise horns, wall-mounted industrial noise horns used
as alarms in factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns
used as alarms in homes and cars); foam and refrigerants in new
domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand-alone
coolers and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic,
photographic, and other equipment.
On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition
was incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further
correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found
the petition incomplete, EPA's action in this proposal may be
considered responsive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is
proposing to change the listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and
foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and proposing to
place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses.
A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and
IGSD. They requested that EPA:
Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes
for CFC-12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers;
Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all
except certified technicians with access to service tools required
under existing EPA regulations;
Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of
transition from obsolete high-GWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives
and substitutes;
Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other refrigerants
with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable substitutes
list for household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail
food refrigerators and freezers.
On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and
the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found
in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA's
action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects
of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-
134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food
refrigerators and freezers, as well as changing the listing of a number
of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers.
B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions
This action primarily recognizes a call in the President's Climate
Action Plan announced June 2013:
To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead
both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions . .
. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while
prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.
The Climate Action Plan also states ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the
United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as
well as domestic actions.'' This proposed rule is part of our domestic
commitment to take action now and, by doing so, also supporting efforts
to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past five years, the United
States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal
Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global
benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United
States,
[[Page 46135]]
the European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions
that will promote the uptake of low-GWP alternatives and reduce use and
emissions of high-GWP HFCs.
This proposal responds to the President's Climate Action Plan and
also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions referred to
above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the three
petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners' request that EPA
change the listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new
MVACs. (See section V.B. in today's notice.) While EPA found all
remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to the
other end-uses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information
to address certain other requests made by the petitioners regarding
listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specifically, based on our
review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration
sectors, we are proposing to revise the listings for a number of
substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions, or
unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today's notice.)
These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or
potentially available substitutes in those end-uses and pose
significantly greater risk overall to human health and the environment.
EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend
and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any
specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is
also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable
substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g.,
HFCs, HFOs and non-fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes
are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications,
and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of
other available and potentially available substitutes in specific
sectors and end-uses.
EPA recently issued a proposed rule (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811)
that would list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of
refrigeration and air-conditioning alternatives that have been
submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. That rule would enhance
the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related end-
uses by proposing to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to
use conditions.
As noted previously, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400
alternatives. This level of development work serves as a clear
demonstration of the efforts of industry to commercialize alternatives
that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide range
of consumers.
Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated
community on the SNAP related aspects of the President's Climate Action
Plan, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role
that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of
alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP
program, such as its chemical and end-use specific consideration, its
multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend to
militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such
as bright line cut offs. That being said we do believe that the
proposals we are making today, and future proposals we may make, may
provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria
in individual end-uses. In addition, we remain committed to continuing
our outreach efforts and to sharing our thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions we might consider. Finally, and as it
relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under
the SNAP program, the Agency continues to welcome comments and ideas on
measures we might consider within the SNAP context to provide greater
certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP regulated industrial
sectors.
V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?
EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable for certain HFCs and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing,
and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives
are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk.
Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the
intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular
end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be
unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing
that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-
free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non-
fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially
acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and CAA Section
612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes
being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current
suite of other available and potentially available substitutes.
EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
(1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2016
HFC-125 as unacceptable;
HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in
consumer aerosols); and
HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
(2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year MY 2021;
and
The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
(3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems,
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
(4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
and R-434A as unacceptable.
(5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as
unacceptable.
(6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam-
blowing end-uses;
HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as acceptable, except
for spray foam applications; and
[[Page 46136]]
The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP
listings are based on information concerning the availability of
alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the
environment for the end-uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on
the proposed dates. 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 particularly interested
in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient
quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that
several of the end-uses could be broken down further. EPA could
consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits for a specific
application of an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes
would be available for all but that specific application as of a
particular date. For other applications in that end-use, the rule would
list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific
application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed
use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon
the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While the temporary narrowed
use limit was in place, only persons using a substitute in the end-use
for that specific application would be considered to not be in
violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR
82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to comply with
the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other
alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use.
To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed use limit for a
specific application of an end-use in the final rule, commenters should
explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific
application of that end-use and for what period of time.
In determining whether to modify the listing decisions for
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among
other things: scientific findings, information provided by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that supports the Montreal
Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the
regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings,
presentations and reports presented at domestic and international
conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional
organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in
the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section
IX of today's notice.
A. Aerosols
1. Background
The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses:
propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or
compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder
form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants
off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient.
Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in
manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and
other soils.
Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been
available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed
gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, compressed
air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol
industry predominantly used CFCs. CFCs were excellent propellants
because of their ability to produce a fine spray, their 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 ozone layer, the United States
banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or
solvent uses. For example, CFC-113 and methyl chloroform continued to
be used as solvents in aerosols and HCFCs continued to be used.
Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were
reformulated or replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-
in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on
deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs,
compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are
controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to
regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import
under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a).
In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610's
Congressionally mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for
sale and distribution of certain 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 early 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-dichloroethylene (typically blended
with an HFC or HFE to reduce flammability of the formulation). Other
acceptable low-GWP fluorinated compounds include HFOs. HFO-1234ze(E) is
in use and under development for use in the aerosol industry as a
propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued
pursuant to CAA section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
for manufacturing aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed
regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs in
aerosol products (e.g., HCFC-225ca/cb), as well as other provisions
related to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December
24, 2013; 78 FR 78072).
The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol products in
the following three categories: (1) Consumer aerosols, (2) technical
aerosols, and (3) medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols includes products
for personal and household use. Examples include personal care
products, such as: Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and deodorants;
automotive products such as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake
cleaners; noise horns and safety horns; animal repellants; spray
adhesives with various applications; household cleaning products; hand-
held spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard dusters; consumer freeze
sprays (e.g. chewing gum or excrement removal); air fresheners; food
dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial snow,
plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers).
Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in
commercial and industrial applications, not for normal day-to-day
consumer use or medical use. Technical aerosols includes industrial
cleaners (e.g.,
[[Page 46137]]
electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux removers,
degreasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet sprays, aircraft
insecticides); a subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives,
semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens for observation under
electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays.
Technical aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as
industrial spray paints and document preservation sprays.
Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and
include, but are not limited to, products regulated by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical aerosols include metered dose
inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, calamine spray, anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound care
sprays, freeze or coolant spray for pain relief, spray-on ``liquid''
bandages, and products for removing bandage adhesives.
Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the
categories described above. For example, insect sprays include products
with both commercial and consumer applications. The commercial
application would include insect sprays used by utility power line
workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) and
the consumer use would include residential household insect repellant
commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer aerosol). Another example
is freeze sprays which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food
freeze sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical aerosols (e.g., wart
removers, pain relievers).
Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is
concentrated within household consumer products. This category has the
highest production volume, reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to 2011
(CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes many personal care products
(325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has
identified as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a). Some of the
dominant consumer aerosols includes air fresheners, deodorants,
household cleaners, and hairspray.
3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
Today's action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is
proposing to modify the listings for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as
of January 1, 2016 as follows:
EPA is proposing to change the listing for the aerosol
propellant HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable.
We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC-134a
as acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in the
following: Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other
soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for
electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance;
pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold
release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under
electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose
inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be
used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound
care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products
for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
EPA is also proposing to list HFC-227ea as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose
inhalers.
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,
CO2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In
addition, technological options include not-in-kind alternatives such
as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes,
and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124
compared with HFC-134a's GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea's GWP of 3,220 and
HFC-125's GWP of 3,500.\24\ All of these alternatives have an ODP of
zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining
below their respective exposure limits when used as aerosol
propellants. In addition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other
environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers
that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality
and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are
VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME
are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards; thus,
these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation
that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states
and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone. HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed
gases CO2 and N2 are not defined as VOCs under
these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact
on ground-level ozone levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is
listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the
calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Consumer Aerosols
For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs
that meet other environmental regulatory requirements: HFC-152a, which
has a GWP of 124; HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6; and CO2
with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of
the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions
(range of GWPs from 1430 to 3500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125).
These three substitutes also provide a range of performance based on
vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to
propel the necessary ingredients out of the aerosol container. The
vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and CO2 at 20
[deg]C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
ii. Technical Aerosols
Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous
requirements for selection because of performance demands that do not
exist for most consumer aerosols. For example, nonflammable aerosols
are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can
create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable
alternatives, the nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E) and compressed gases including
CO2 and N2. At slightly higher temperatures (30
[deg]C or 85 [deg]F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher
flammability limits and
[[Page 46138]]
could catch fire under specific conditions of concentration and in the
presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol product
formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of
HFO-1234ze(E) and the significantly higher vapor pressure of
CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate
performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the
can for technical aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-
1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and CO2 at 20 [deg]C are 422 kPa, 655
kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used
requires non-flammability and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based
on the information available today, EPA believes it is necessary to
continue to allow for HFC-134a to be used for certain technical spray
applications because of these technical limitations. We are therefore
proposing to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions
which would limit use to those specific applications.
HFC-134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that can
consistently meet the technical aerosol performance requirements, other
environmental regulatory requirements, and is nonflammable. EPA
considered whether HFC-227ea or HFC-125 should be continue to be listed
as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have
significantly higher GWPs than HFC-134a (HFC-227ea's GWP is 3220 and
HFC-125's GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use of HFC-
227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any
significant use of HFC-125 in technical aerosols. Neither HFC-227ea nor
HFC-125 provides greater reduction in health or environmental risk than
HFC-134a.
iii. Medical Aerosols
EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable
subject to use conditions which specify that these two HFCs are
acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there is no
confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these
medical aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC-134a as
acceptable subject to use conditions for wound care sprays, for topical
coolant sprays for pain alleviation and for products for removing
bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special
needs for safety and low toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a
substitute to be available for use in medical devices, it must first be
reviewed and approved by the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use
in 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 MDIs or other medical aerosols
using HFC-125. EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currently
using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not-in-kind
alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, calamine
sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF,
2014a). EPA has insufficient information that alternatives other than
HFC-134a are available as propellants in wound care sprays; topical
coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage
adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are
available alternatives with less overall risk to human health and the
environment than HFC-134a. For these reasons, we are proposing to list
HFC-227ea as acceptable subject to a use condition limiting its use to
MDIs and to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions
limiting its use to MDIs and the other medical uses listed above.
HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all
other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants
(HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC-134 has a GWP of 1430; HFO-1234ze(E)
has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO2 and HFO-
1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. When EPA
listed HFC-227ea as acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted
that it was doing so despite the relatively high GWP of this compound,
because it fit a specialized application, metered dose inhalers, where
other substitutes were not available that would provide acceptable
performance.
EPA's proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea only to manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products
is modeled upon the Nonessential Product Ban exemptions for ODS in
subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban and the
proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed
the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol
products in interstate commerce, whereas this proposal addresses the
propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products.
Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC-125 as unacceptable, HFC-227ea
as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use only for MDIs
and HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use
only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. We
request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these
three HFCs. We also request comment on whether any of the proposed
technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a should not be allowed or whether
there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed
uses under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not
intending to alter the listing as acceptable for HFC-227ea and HFC-134a
for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on the additional
medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a.
b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for
aerosols and seeks comments on both. The first, as discussed above, is
to find HFC-125 unacceptable and find HFC-227ea and HFC-134a acceptable
subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list of
allowed uses or product types that may continue to use these HFCs
(e.g., metered dose inhalers for both HFCs, insect sprays used near
high tension power lines for HFC-134a). A second approach we are
considering is to find HFC-125 unacceptable and to find HFC-134a
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical
aerosols and HFC-227ea subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose
inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered ``use restrictions'' and
are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC-227ea in
metered dose inhalers or using HFC-134a in technical or medical
aerosols would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of
the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The terms
``technical aerosol'' and ``medical aerosol'' would apply to the types
of aerosols described above in section 2. ``Aerosols today.'' Under the
narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other user intending to use the
substitute could only use HFC-134a in manufacturing a technical or
medical aerosol, or HFC-227ea in manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler,
after ascertaining that other alternatives are not technically
feasible. The user also would be required to document their evaluation.
40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses
are that the list is clear about which products are allowed to use HFC-
134a or HFC-227ea, both for users and for EPA. In addition, because EPA
is specifying the uses in advance, end-users would not be
[[Page 46139]]
required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep
paperwork to document their evaluation, thereby reducing regulatory
burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use limits is that it
may encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate
alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC-134a is not
required. Further, establishing narrowed use limits may allow greater
flexibility if there are additional types of technical or medical
aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC-
134a that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment
on these two approaches to modifying the listings of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea as aerosol propellants.
c. When would the modified listings apply?
EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings
for HFC-125, 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 allow sufficient time after this proposed rule for end users to
make the transition to alternatives. Based on the information available
to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives.
EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aerosols can make the
necessary changes within this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014). In
most cases, EPA believes it will take approximately six months for the
necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the affected
aerosol manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to change and test
formulations and, to the extent necessary, to change the equipment in
their factories.
To prevent stranded inventory, we are proposing that products
manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be
still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end user after
January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that end users would
need to dispose of a usable product, including the potential for
improper releases of the content into the environment.
d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the
following aerosol propellants: HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable;
HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions
allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux
and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants
for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft
maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in
total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for
removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and
specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation sprays;
metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols
can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs;
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and
products for removing bandage adhesives from skin; and HFC-227ea from
acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use
only in metered dose inhalers.
EPA also received suggestions from the aerosol industry to consider
an exception to allow the use of HFC-134a in additional categories of
aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to include these categories,
either because we are aware of existing products in these categories
using low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information
indicating that the use of HFC-134a is necessary for these categories
of products because other substitutes that pose lower risk are not
currently or potentially available. These categories include: component
freeze sprays, tissue freezes, refrigeration system flushes, portable
safety horns for use in marine and industrial applications, tire
inflators, and personal defense sprays. We are aware of low-GWP
formulations already on the market today for defensive sprays 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
propellants with lower GWP in place of HFC-134a have been tested in
these products; and what results of those tests have shown about the
technical feasibility and/or safety of the other alternative
propellants.
Finally, we request comments on modifying the listings as of
January 1, 2016. We request commenters include specific information on
whether it would be technically feasible for end-users to transition by
January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for
manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps
are expected to take.
B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles
1. Background
MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and
rail vehicles. CFC-12 refrigerant was historically used in MVAC
systems. HFC-134a replaced CFC-12 in new equipment in the early 1990s.
Today, HFC-134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles
worldwide. When EPA found HFC-134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty
vehicles in 1994 (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the Agency stated:
HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and
atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which
have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However,
HFC-134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in
leaky end-uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of
HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because industry
continues to develop technology to limit emissions. In addition, the
number of substitutes available for use in MVACs is currently
limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low.
This analysis was consistent with the information available in 1994.
Since that time, four additional substitutes have been added to the
list of substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for
light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other
substitutes are used in systems designed consistent with the prescribed
use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human health and
the environment than HFC-134a. EPA is therefore proposing to remove
HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for new light-duty
vehicles' MVAC systems and add it to the list of unacceptable
substitutes.
Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as
acceptable subject to 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
[[Page 46140]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time EPA listed HFC-134a as acceptable, the agency was not
aware of any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer
considering HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant. Today, HFO-1234yf is in use in
MVAC systems in approximately nine \26\ models in the United States by
several manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. EPA expects additional
models will be introduced using HFO-1234yf systems over the next
several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, at least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles
has announced their intention to commercialize vehicles using R-744 in
MVAC systems later this decade.\27\ In the mid-1990s, EPA became aware
that R-744 systems might be a feasible alternative in this application,
but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet
available because a design had not yet been developed that would allow
safe use in MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. Nearly 20 years later,
EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R-744 in MVAC
systems. However, significant research and development is occurring in
order to ensure R-744 can be used safely in MVAC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Daimler, 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 systems. One
chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP approval for
another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting
December 6, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or
acceptable subject to use conditions. None of these are currently used
by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Several of these
previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantly higher
than the GWPS for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744 and higher overall
risk than these other three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as
unacceptable the following substitutes in addition to HFC-134a: SP34E
(GWP of 1300), R-426A (also known as RS-24) (GWP of 1508), R-416A (also
known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC
blends, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as
GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs ranging from
0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as ``the
refrigerant blends'' in the following discussion.
2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty
motor vehicles?
EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC
systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning with MY
2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because that is the time by which all
light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems
using other available refrigerants. As explained above, three
alternatives on the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes subject to use
conditions --HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf--have significantly lower
GWPs than HFC-134a. All three of these lower-GWP alternatives are non-
ozone depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure
exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be
exceeded. All three are VOC exempt. HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are
flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability
concerns. R-744 is not flammable. Because HFC-134a has a significantly
higher GWP than HFC-152a, 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-134a as unacceptable. However, because the
three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC-134a only if
used consistent with the established use conditions, in deciding when
the unacceptability determination should apply, we considered the date
by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle
models (including design of the MVAC systems) consistent with the use
conditions.
EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, 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 systems in
newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. Since these refrigerant
blends are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty
vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability
determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed.
Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have
significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC-152a,
HFO-1234yf, and CO2.
EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be
able to transition their fleets to lower GWP refrigerants in its rules
to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year
(MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15,
2012); see also 75 FR 25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the
same issue for MY 2012-2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued these rules on
August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017-2025 light-duty
vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion
barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions, with
societal net benefits up to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The standards
build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles,
which are projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil
and 962 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the
affected vehicles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 billion. 75
FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire light-duty vehicle fleet will
meet a target of 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the automotive
industry meets the target exclusively through fuel efficiency
improvements).
When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning
systems, they contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP
refrigerants can significantly reduce the climate impact of these
emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower-GWP chemicals
suitable for this purpose and systems that can use them, as well as
increasing requirement for lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,\29\ EPA
based the light-duty GHG standards
[[Page 46141]]
for MYs 2017-2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lower-
GWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the level of the standards, EPA
projected that the industry will make the full transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 2017 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 transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule
for MYs 2017-2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant
substitute availability and technical feasibility of transitioning the
fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807-810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time the Light Duty GHG rule was promulgated, EPA (and other
entities) voiced concerns with the potential supply of HFO-1234yf, but
today production plans for the refrigerant appear to be in place to
make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic
auto industry demand, consistent with the projections in the Light Duty
GHG rulemaking. Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO-
1234yf, and recently another global chemical producer announced plans
to produce HFO-1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers
are developing systems that can safely use other substitutes, including
R-744, and continued progress is likely given the EU's implementation
of the MAC Directive. If some global light-duty motor vehicle
manufacturers use R-744, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would
have been used by those manufacturers will then become available.
Therefore, there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand
domestically and abroad, including in the European Union, during this
time frame.
In addition to considering when the supply of alternative
refrigerants would be sufficient to transition the entire light duty
vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle
manufacturers could design systems for safe use of these alternatives
consistent with the regulatory use conditions.\30\ EPA considered the
practices used by the auto manufacturing industry in introducing new
technologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers
establish a ``redesign'' (or product development) cycle over which they
plan any significant technological changes to that vehicle. Between the
major redesign model years, they may make only minor ``refresh''
changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by manufacturer and average
about 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407,
25451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice.) At any point in
time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major
redesign point and others that are earlier in their product cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule establishing light-duty vehicle GHG standards for
MYs 2017-2025, EPA assumed that the transition to alternative
refrigerants would generally occur during manufacturer model redesigns
and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years
to estimate how the expected industry-wide transition to new
refrigerants might occur. For analytical purposes, and based on
information available at the time, we projected that the transition
would occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been
some early adopters. The transition began in a small number of MY 2013
vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has been relatively limited
to date.\31\ While some may maintain that early adoption equates to a
faster overall transition, EPA notes that early adoption remains
limited and therefore we continue to view our projection of full
transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there may be some limited ability to switch a vehicle
model to an MVAC system using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign
periods, most model types will require significant hardware changes
that may only be possible during a redesign. HFO-1234yf, for example,
has measurably lower efficiency than that of HFC-134a, usually
requiring hardware changes and/or changes to overall air conditioning
system design and layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case
of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to HFC-134a, where the
systems had similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were
able to switch many vehicles 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. Most manufacturers have ``locked-
in'' their planned product designs out to MY 2016, MY 2017, or even MY
2018. If any of these manufacturers have not planned to implement
alternative refrigerant systems in these late model year vehicles, the
next design cycle opportunity to make a change would be unlikely to
occur until MY 2021 (or even MY 2022). In addition, at least one
manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R-744 (CO2)
systems. R-744 systems require significantly more complex redesign and
hardware and would need to occur during product redesign, not product
refresh given its pressure is significantly different than HFC-134a.
These systems are currently in prototype phase, and there are
significant technical hurdles yet to overcome. Given EPA's
understanding, above, of the supply of the alternative refrigerants and
the redesign cycle for MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a
as unacceptable for new MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 because
this is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be
redesigned to safely use MVAC systems with alternative refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From
Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive
Engineering International, April 2, 2013.
\33\ One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware
changes were necessary or likely when shifting from a HFC-134a to a
HFO-1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/or
compressor changes, possible A/C piping modification due to the
change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant,
additional refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum:
``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant
Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made
similar statements to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a cross-check, EPA explored whether vehicles and MVAC systems
designed consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative
refrigerants might be available earlier than MY 2021, evaluating (but
not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date included in the
petition described above and in the EU MAC Directive. Since most motor
vehicle manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform,
selecting the same date as the date in the EU MAC Directive has some
weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 and 2021.
The agency believes it is necessary for MVAC system redesigns for
many vehicles to occur during a design cycle to safely use the
substitute refrigerants, as just explained. Manufacturers are currently
designing or have ``locked in'' designs for vehicles several model
years into the future. The information currently before the Agency thus
indicates that it would not be
[[Page 46142]]
technically feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all
vehicles from HFC-134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not proposing the MY
2019 date for the same reasons. However, we solicit comment on whether
all manufacturers would be able to safely transition all vehicles away
from HFC-134a MVAC systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019.
We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the
appropriate time for use of HFC-134a in MVAC systems in new vehicles to
be listed as unacceptable. In recent meetings with the major trade
associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global Automakers)
as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers,
industry representatives indicated that some of them may have a
relatively small number of vehicle models that will not have had the
opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They also indicated
that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would
require longer product design cycles if the systems were to use
substitute refrigerants. However, we do not have sufficient non-
confidential information to conclude that systems capable of using
alternative refrigerant safely will not be ``currently or potentially
available''--within the meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the Act--until
after MY 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of HFC-134a
in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including
specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021
would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles
cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY2021.
For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will
be available by MY 2021.
Based on the information before the Agency, EPA is thus proposing
to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for
light duty vehicles, while seeking comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs
later than 2021.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have
applied to specified calendar years, However, because the MVAC
system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY
for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years cover almost two
calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar
year and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to
service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a. Such a change
could strand the installed base of equipment or force retrofits to
other refrigerants. In order to safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the
vehicle design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in
order to ensure the refrigerant can be used safely. For that reason,
the three low-GWP refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable
in new MVACs--HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744-are not listed as
acceptable to retrofit a system designed to use a different
refrigerant.
Once MVAC systems are designed and installed with lower GWP
substitutes, they will likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders
have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf
and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with
HFC-134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations
under title VI of the CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful.
First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to
`top-off' a system that uses another refrigerant. Second, the original
refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued
under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute (40
CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery regulations prohibit
adding a new refrigerant to the system without first recovering the
refrigerant already in the system. Therefore, it is not permissible to
add HFC-134a to an MVAC system that contains HFO-1234yf, as may well
occur if a consumer were to service his or her own car's A/C system
without refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings
for HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a require the use of unique fittings for each
alternative refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use
conditions.
EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, 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
systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning with
MY 2017 and changing the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable beginning
with MY 2021.
3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
Today's proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect
on the MY 2017-2025 light duty vehicle GHG standards. Those standards
are established by rule and EPA is not reopening that rule in this
proceeding. We do note, however, that today's proposal is relevant to
one of the compliance flexibilities in the light duty vehicle
standards. The light duty vehicle standards do not require any specific
means of compliance. Manufacturers thus have the flexibility to either
switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. The
light duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits
from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-
134a through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits
towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change if
this action is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 62804-809. (As noted
above, the level of the standard reflects the assumption of 100%
substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer may choose to
comply with the light duty standard by a strategy not involving
refrigerant substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed rule, if finalized,
would still require the manufacturer to use an MVAC designed for a
refrigerant other than HFC-134a.
C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
1. Background
Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program that
is also considered a subset of the broader term ``commercial
refrigeration,'' is characterized by storing and displaying, generally
for sale, food and beverages at different temperatures for different
products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating
capacities of equipment vary widely. Vending machines are another
subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate 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 payment, provide the selected product, and prevent theft or
damage from vandalism.
Retail food refrigeration is composed of three main categories of
equipment: Stand-alone equipment; condensing units; and supermarket
systems, the latter often in designs referred to as multiplex or
centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of
refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with
doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the
smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded.
These systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically
require only an electricity supply to begin operation.
[[Page 46143]]
Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically
from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed
of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one
receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located
external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more
nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display
cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. Condensing units are commonly
installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries
and butcher shops.
Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a
machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the
refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design
classifications are used: Direct and indirect systems. In the United
States, direct systems are the most widespread. At least 70 percent of
supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX)
systems to cool their display cases.\35\ The refrigerant circulates
from the machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in
display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the
suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk-in cold
rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but an
alternative option is to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a
given storage room. Another type of supermarket design, often referred
to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate
compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a
central compressor rack system. Each of these smaller racks handles a
portion of the supermarket load, with 5-10 such systems in a store.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and
cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller or other
refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated
throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an
indirect system rely on a lineup of 10-20 units, each using small
charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more or fewer of the
chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop
system whereby the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then
circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact
chiller is an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge,
reducing the potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or
catastrophic failures. Cascade systems use a compressor to raise the
low-temperature coolant from low-temperature conditions up to an
intermediate temperature while a separate refrigerant system uses a
different refrigerant to condense the coolant. Each system within the
cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge allowing the use of
different refrigerants in each system. This application has generally
used a low-GWP refrigerant, specifically carbon dioxide (R-744), in the
low-temperature system, with a variety of refrigerants in the medium-
temperature system.
Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the
temperature required, and energy efficiency, among other things. In
addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other federal or
local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance,
regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use
of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from
local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of
particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a
number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the
refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches
exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple
factors, which include the following: Energy efficiency; system
performance; potential impact on community safety; ambient
temperatures; potential risk to personal safety; cost; and minimization
of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these
and other factors mean there will be a range of options, and the
ultimate selection remains with the owner and operator of the system.
Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex
systems include R-717 and R-744. These can be used alone or in
combination with other refrigerants in other parts of the equipment,
depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary-loop
contains one refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different
refrigerant). For stand-alone refrigeration equipment, propane (R-290)
is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also
proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R-441A and isobutane (R-600a) be
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR
38811). The Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three
hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as acceptable subject to use
conditions for vending machines (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other
substitutes, such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as
acceptable under SNAP, are currently in use in the United States, while
HFOs and blends containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have
not yet been submitted to the SNAP program for review.
The most commonly-used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food
refrigeration include HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-422D, and R-507A.
HFC-134a is a non-ozone depleting chemical with the chemical formula
C2H2F4. It is used in a variety of
air-conditioning and refrigeration end-uses, including motor vehicle
air conditioners, home appliances (such as refrigerator-freezers),
vending machines and building air-conditioning chillers. It is also
used in other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants.
HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430.
R-404A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
143a, and HFC-134a with GWPs of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively.
R-404A's GWP is about 3,920 based on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of
the three HFCs contained in the blend. R-404A is currently acceptable
for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications
including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and
storage cases; vending machines; cold storage warehouses; commercial
ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process
refrigeration.
R-407A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-32, HFC-
125 and HFC-134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, and 1,430 respectively. R-
407A's GWP is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 mass percentages of the
three HFCs contained in the blend. R-407A is acceptable for a variety
of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including
retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage
cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated
transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R-407A is not
currently on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants
for vending machines.
R-422D is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
134a, and R-600a with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008)
respectively. R-422D's GWP is about 2,700 based on the approximate
65.1/31.5/3.4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon
contained in the blend. R-422D is acceptable for a variety of medium-
and low-temperature
[[Page 46144]]
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 systems such as those operating on HCFC-22 and is
less likely to be used in manufacturing new equipment.
R-507A (also designated as R-507) is a non-ozone depleting blend of
refrigerants HFC-125 and HFC-143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470,
respectively. R-507A's GWP is about 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass
percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R-507A is
acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration
applications including in retail food refrigeration equipment such as
food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; refrigerated
transport; and industrial process refrigeration.
2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration
(condensing units and supermarket systems)?
EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new
and retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine blends are R-404A, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A and R-507A. EPA is
not aware of any significant use in the United States of the blends R-
407B, R-421B, R-428A or R-434A in retail food refrigeration equipment.
In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-227ea in new
retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to
unacceptable.\36\ These ten refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730
to 3,985. They are nonflammable. They contain compounds that are exempt
from the definition of ``VOC,'' with the exception of small amounts of
R-290 and R-600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected to
contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relatively low
in toxicity, and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure
that their workplace exposure limits are not exceeded. These practices
include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sheets
and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry. Applicable
workplace exposure limits for the compounds comprising these
refrigerants--HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a, HFC-227ea, R-290 and
R-600a--include Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) of 1000
ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) from the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer's recommended
occupational exposure limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure
limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National Institutes for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ EPA has not previously found HFC-227ea acceptable as a
retrofit refrigerant in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes there are several HFC and non-HFC substitutes that
provide lower overall risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to
list as unacceptable and that are currently used in commercial
refrigeration. For both new and retrofit equipment, acceptable
refrigerants that pose less risk to human health and the environment
include HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, 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 food
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as
of January 1, 2016: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C,
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 types of retail food refrigeration equipment. For
condensing unit systems, R-407C and R-407F are in use in the United
States, and R-744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration
trials in Europe and elsewhere. The GWP for R-407C (a blend of HFC-32,
HFC-125, and HFC-134a) is about 1,770, and R-407F (another blend of
HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a) has a GWP of about 1,820. As a
comparison, R-404A has a GWP of 3,920, R-507A has a GWP of 3,990, and
the other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from
2,730 to 3,985.
For multiplex rack systems, substitutes R-407A, R-407F, and R-744
are all currently in use in the United States and can be used more
safely than the substances that EPA is proposing to list as
unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In
addition, testing is underway with HCs and HFC/HFO blends, though these
refrigerants have not been submitted to SNAP for review in this
application. Each of these four substitutes as well as other
substitutes in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe
for the ozone layer. R-407A, 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. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as
of January 1, 2016: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-
428A, R-434A, and R-507A. We are aware of four of these nine
refrigerants being used to retrofit retail food equipment: R-404A, R-
507A, R-422A, and R-422D. We are not aware of any use of the other five
refrigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek
comment on any such use. This action would not apply to servicing
existing equipment designed for these nine refrigerants or to equipment
that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1,
2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate and to be
serviced using those refrigerants.
For condensing units and supermarket systems, where retrofits are
common, blends such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm for
retrofits, rather than the four identified in the previous paragraph.
The blends R-407A and R-407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825,
respectively. Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as
acceptable for use as retrofits in retail food refrigeration include
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-426A and R-427A and they
have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the other
nine blends we are proposing as
[[Page 46145]]
unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985.
An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted
equipment could primarily affect the many stores that operate using
HCFC-22, but also those using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. This is because as
EPA reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores
will have less material to meet service demands. While the ODS phaseout
does not require owners to retrofit their equipment, a decrease in the
availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those
stores to consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain
refrigerants would not be acceptable. For instance, some stores
currently using HCFC-22 may choose to retrofit as the production and
import of HCFC-22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per
40 CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed HCFC-22 allowance allocations for
the 2014-2019 time period (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have
questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for
retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate
with the ODS they are currently using for longer than they might
otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this question. In response to
this question, we note that many retail chains have been able to
minimize the impact of the HCFC-22 phasedown by maintaining their own
stockpile of HCFC-22, for instance by recovering from stores that are
decommissioned or retrofitted and using such supplies in stores that
continue to operate with HCFC-22. We also note that some service is
being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds
of HCFC-22 being reclaimed every year since at least 2000, and over
seven million pounds every year since 2006.\37\ While we don't know how
this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows
that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited
newly-produced supplies that are being reduced by the phaseout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on
EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC-22, we believe that the
majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply of
the refrigerant currently in-use, for instance during planned
maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy efficient
equipment. We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards
lower-GWP blends such as R-407A and R-407F instead of R-404A and R-
507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that other options, given
the multi-year history of their successful use, are sufficient to meet
the various features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials
compatibility, cost and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit
refrigerant.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ For example, see CCAC 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment?
a. New Stand-Alone Equipment
EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other
refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment
from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other
refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-227ea, IKON B, KDD6, 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 recently proposed to find R-600a and R-441A acceptable
subject to use conditions in new stand-alone equipment (July 9, 2014;
79 FR 38811). These existing and potential substitutes have GWPs
ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, R-404A
with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of
approximately 3,990. None of the substitutes currently listed or
proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While R-290, R-600a, and
R-441A are VOCs, EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting
national ambient air quality standards. At the time we listed R-290 as
acceptable subject to use conditions, we analyzed the potential air
quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this
potential risk to the environment to be significant (ICF, 2014e).\39\
We have likewise proposed to exempt R-600a and R-441A used in stand-
alone equipment from the venting prohibition (July 9, 2014; 79 FR
38811). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the use
conditions specified (or proposed for R-600a and R-441A) would ensure
that they do not pose greater risk than any of the substitutes
currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone equipment.\40\ None
of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable or that we have
proposed to add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts.
Apart from R-290 and R-744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for
new stand-alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in
Section VI below) and/or do not appear to be in production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand that R-290 is already in use globally, including in
the United States, and that R-600a is in use outside of the United
States as well as in test market trials in the United States. We
believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority of
the current market for use in stand-alone equipment. We note that there
may be a need to modify the equipment design in order to meet the use
conditions for R-290 and the proposed use conditions for R-600a and R-
441A (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). 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. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand-alone
equipment as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to
servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to
equipment retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016.
For instance, equipment retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those
refrigerants.
[[Page 46146]]
While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as
acceptable for this purpose. For equipment still operating using ozone-
depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other
than R-404A and R-507A that present lower overall risk to human health
and the environment that are available. Our analysis indicates that
other options such as HFC-134a can be used to retrofit stand-alone
units.
4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
a. New Vending Machines
EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other
refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable
as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B,
IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E. These refrigerants
have GWPs ranging from approximately 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 currently being used in this end-use. In addition, EPA
recently proposed to find R-600a, R-290 and R-441A acceptable subject
to use conditions in new vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811).
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 (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811).
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 analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting
national ambient air quality standards. (ICF 2014e).\41\ These three
substitutes are also flammable; however, the proposed use conditions
for these three substitutes would ensure they do not pose greater risk
than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable (July 9, 2014;
79 FR 38811). None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed to
be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity
concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Hence, we find that R-290, R-600a
and R-441A are potentially available and present a lower overall risk
to human health and the environment than HFC-134a and the other
refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending
machines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new vending machines, EPA has found R-744 acceptable without
use conditions. While the vast majority of vending machines using non-
ODS refrigerant currently use HFC-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its
HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new equipment (Coca Cola, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R-744 and the other hydrocarbons
that EPA has proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in
vending machines, the use conditions that we have proposed to establish
for the hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks based on
other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC-134a, we
propose to change the listing of HFC-134a and the alternatives listed
in the first paragraph of this section to unacceptable in new vending
machines.
b. Retrofit Vending Machines
EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending
machines operating on CFC-12, HCFC-22, and blends containing HCFCs, as
of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing
equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been
retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including
those systems previously using ozone-depleting refrigerants such as
HCFC-22. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those
refrigerants.
Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain
acceptable for retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,
IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-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 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02. These refrigerants have
GWPs from approximately 50 to approximately 3,100, while the two
refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R-404A and R-507A, have GWPs of
3,922 and 3,985, respectively. In this respect, these two refrigerants
present a higher risk to human health and the environment. Looking at
the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining
acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment:
they are nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and they do not exhibit
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts.
Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human
health and the environment than R-404A and R-507A.
5. When would the listings change?
Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that
apply within commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date--
January 1, 2016. Looking at the intersection between the end-use and
the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as of January
1, 2016, allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new
installations or manufacturing equipment lines in these end-uses to be
redesigned to use a substitute to the refrigerants we are proposing to
find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow any plans
for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the
multiple other substitutes that would remain acceptable. For many years
other refrigerants such as R-407A and R-407F that would remain on the
acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining market
share in supermarket applications, in both new equipment and as
retrofit fluids.\43\ As part of this market expansion, manufacturers
have developed equipment to use them, and that equipment is available
to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these other
refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built
up the skills, knowledge and experience to more fully utilize these
refrigerants in a timeframe that would accommodate January 1, 2016 as
[[Page 46147]]
the date of unacceptability. For stand-alone equipment and vending
machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are
acceptable or are proposed acceptable with use conditions, including R-
744, R-290 and R-600a.\44\ EPA requests comment on this proposed date.
EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of
substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition
within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
\44\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Applicability To Service of Existing Equipment
As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to
service existing retail food refrigeration equipment or vending
machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016. We
recognize the value of the currently installed appliances and are not
seeking to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that
servicing for existing equipment is often accomplished with recovered
and recycled refrigerants.
EPA seeks comments on allowing for the continued servicing of the
existing retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with
the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016.
7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
Energy efficiency has not historically been a criterion by which a
refrigerant is analyzed under the SNAP program, and it is not used as
one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA recognizes that the
energy efficiency of particular models of equipment is a significant
factor when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. We also
recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is
in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular
thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses.
Throughout the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has seen
the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment
increase, despite changing refrigerant options. In some cases, this was
because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique properties
that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In addition,
technological improvement in equipment designs and controls has
increased energy efficiency. Although today's proposal would eliminate
some refrigerant choices, we do not believe it would have a detrimental
effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are
multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency
gains achieved by some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such as R-744, R-
290 and R-600a, that are available or potentially available for the
end-uses addressed in this proposal. We welcome additional information
and comment on improved energy efficiency associated with switching
refrigerants.
For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theoretical analysis
(Emerson 2014) examined the energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of
which would remain acceptable under this proposal, against that of R-
404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this analysis
found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in
the low-temperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream),
they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the medium-temperature
part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared food).
Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medium-
temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the alternatives to
use less energy than R-404A. This manufacturer's analyses showed
similar increases in energy efficiency compared to R-404A in
supermarkets and stand-alone equipment for a variety of low-GWP
refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP but are in development.
While that manufacturer's analysis showed slightly higher energy
consumption than 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 commonly used in US freezers'' (Ben and Jerry's,
2014). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that
while introducing over one million units using R-744, they have
increased the energy efficiency of their cooling equipment over 40%
since 2000, many years after they adopted HFC-134a (Coca-Cola, 2014).
Finally, we note that energy efficiency is influenced, but not
determined, by the refrigerant. As new products are designed for the
use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to
change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant's
characteristics. The redesign and development phase is also an
opportunity to improve other components that will affect the overall
efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors
and compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved
insulation (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for products with
doors), more efficient lighting, etc.
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under
separate rulemaking and separate authority, energy efficiency
requirements for several types of commercial refrigeration equipment,
including products that would be affected by this proposal. While EPA's
proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use
in new equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject
to the DOE requirements and would normally need to meet the standards
set.\45\ As discussed above, EPA does not believe this proposal would
prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant
models are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants EPA has proposed as unacceptable. EPA requests comment on
the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of the
commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the
effect, if any, this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. What other options is EPA considering?
EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for
several other substitutes in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking
comment on these substitutes.
a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
When analyzing supermarket retail food refrigeration systems, as an
alternative to changing the listing to unacceptable for HFC-227ea, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A, we are
considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these
chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket
systems. Supermarkets could use systems employing one of the
[[Page 46148]]
many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the United
States, such as distributed refrigeration, secondary-loop, and cascade
designs. To set the charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge
size limit that is necessary, but not fully sufficient, to achieve a
Gold-Level Store Certification under EPA's GreenChill Store
Certification Program.\46\ That specification requires that the store
must achieve an average HFC refrigerant charge equal to or less than
1.25 pounds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator heat load.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Additional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/.
\47\ In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores
must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and must meet a
store-wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in
order to be certified at the Gold level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction
requiring a small charge is to limit the amount of high-GWP refrigerant
that would be emitted in a catastrophic event. However, given the high
GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are
available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small
charge size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose. Further,
we recognize that using a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R-407A or R-
407F, is also possible in small-charge systems, and several stores are
operating with such systems today.
For retrofits, two primary factors lead us to consider a use
restriction for a small charge size in place of listing the substitutes
as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket systems in
operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants today, and there may be
some concern that not all could be retrofitted with the lower-GWP
blends, i.e., whether there truly are alternatives ``available'' for
the purpose. As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First,
based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs
today would be at least 18 years old, beyond the typical average
lifetime.\48\ Because it is typical to retire older equipment before
newer equipment, it is likely that many stores using those refrigerants
would be decommissioned, or the refrigeration systems would be replaced
rather than retrofitted. Second, we do not see an impediment in the
continued operation of stores currently using refrigerants proposed
unacceptable for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above).
We know that some stores have systems that continue to use CFC-12 and/
or R-502, the production and import of which was phased out in 1996,
and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can be achieved, if
desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the
refrigerants we propose as unacceptable. Finally, where retrofits to
refrigerants that are not proposed as unacceptable have occurred, the
industry has been able to achieve acceptable capacity and efficiency
levels. All these factors point to the ability of industry to make
business decisions on which stores to decommission or retrofit and when
to do so while maintaining their operations without the need to rely on
the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime
of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between
seven and 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list
of acceptable retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive
for stores with older systems (more likely to leak) to continue use of
ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC-22 but also CFC-12, R-502,
and multiple blends containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or replace
those systems with a new refrigerant. While production and import of
HCFC-22 and all other HCFCs used in the acceptable retrofit blends are
capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozone-depleting
refrigerants into the atmosphere. The additional refrigerant that they
would need to service that leaky equipment might not have been produced
in the first place if the demand was not there. Nonetheless, given the
tight controls on production and import of ozone-depleting
refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited
supplies are directed and where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant
other than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above,
particularly the availability of substitutes able to work with the
design of existing systems that might be retrofitted, and the possible
perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to
operate older, less efficient, and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also
requests comments on the specified charge size limit and how it would
be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing
units and supermarket systems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction
rather than take final action by listing some or all of these
refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing units and supermarket
systems.
b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending
machines, we are considering maintaining the acceptability status of
HFC-134a and blends with a lower GWP--FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B,
SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03--subject to a use restriction. One reason to
maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC-
134a, would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the
primary refrigerant employed in these end-uses while new low-GWP
substitutes are developed.
For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes
other than HFC-134a are available for low-temperature refrigeration
applications, for instance, for ice-cream novelty or microwavable
frozen-food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use
restriction that HFC-134a could only be used in vending machines
designed for, and maintaining, an internal temperature of 32 [deg]F (0
[deg]C) or below. However, we believe that the availability of R-744,
which is listed as acceptable, and the availability of HCs, which we
have proposed to list as acceptable, do not support such an action. We
are requesting comment on the viability of these substitutes in low-
temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the
supply of components designed for R-744, hydrocarbons, or other
potential substitutes for use in 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. Some stand-alone retail food
refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have required design changes,
and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits,
raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications
within this end-use. EPA is considering adding a use restriction
limiting the use of HFC-134a and the blends mentioned to only larger-
sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller-sized units. To
determine the dividing line between ``small'' and ``large'' units, we
are considering options such as the number of doors within a single
unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume.
[[Page 46149]]
Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it
because we feel other options exist to design units using other less
harmful alternatives, even in large stand-alone units. The SNAP
acceptability listing for R-744 in stand-alone equipment does not
include a restriction on charge size or any other use condition. We
also recognize the ability to apply separate refrigeration circuits
within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit with up to 150 grams
of R-290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to
150 grams of R-290 to cool the rest of the unit. Such dual-circuit
designs might be particularly effective if different parts of the unit
are used for different products that require different temperature
conditions or have different refrigeration loads.
EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would
determine what size of a unit could not use substitutes that would
remain on the acceptable list under this proposal or that we have
recently proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing
line would be drawn; and how such a use restriction could avoid
unintended consequences such as the over-sizing of units to allow the
use of HFC-134a.
EPA believes that R-744, an acceptable option for both new stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and
R-290, an acceptable substitute for new stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending
machines, could satisfy the vast majority of new equipment in these
end-uses. However, we seek additional information and studies that
would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g., 3-door and
other large retail food refrigeration stand-alone equipment) could meet
the charge size limit in the case of R-290. We also seek information
regarding whether certain applications (e.g., low-temperature vending
machines) could be effective while maintaining current energy
efficiency levels in the case of R-744.
c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
EPA has proposed to find R-404A and R-507A unacceptable for
retrofits in both stand-alone equipment and vending machines. EPA is
considering also changing the acceptability status of several other
refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option, we would change the
status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in
retrofit retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-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). Likewise, this option
would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable
to unacceptable in retrofit vending machines: KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-24 (2002
formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range
from 1,505 to 3,985.
These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC-134a, which would
remain acceptable for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk
to human health and the environment. Similar to HFC-134a, these other
refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxicity, flammability,
ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC-134a would be the
most likely refrigerant to be used to retrofit stand-alone equipment
and vending machines still operating on ozone-depleting refrigerant.
EPA questions whether the other refrigerants listed above would serve
any retrofit need, and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA believes some
existing vending machines and stand-alone equipment still use class I
ozone-depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 and R-502 and that even
more equipment continues to use class II ozone-depleting refrigerants,
primarily HCFC-22. Other than HFC-134a, we do not believe there are
substitutes that would likely be used for most of this equipment for
purposes of retrofitting.
We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes, in
addition to R-404A and R-507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in
vending machines and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment.
In particular, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock
of equipment operating with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the
likelihood that they will require a retrofit before being replaced with
a new unit, and the substitute(s) that could be and are likely to be
used.
d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other End-Uses
Considering the high GWP of R-404A, R-507A, and some of the other
blends proposed as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them
unacceptable in several other end-uses, besides retail food
refrigeration and vending machines, such as cold storage rooms and
warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial
process refrigeration. We believe that the substitutes that are being
used in retail food refrigeration, such as R-407A and R-407F, would be
theoretically viable in these other end-uses too, given that the
operational characteristics of such equipment, such as temperature to
be maintained, are similar. Those two substitutes, and others, have
been found acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned. In addition, low-
GWP substitutes have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these
end-uses, and research is underway in the others. For example, for the
industrial process refrigeration end-use, R-744, R-717, and several HCs
have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R-744 is
acceptable for new equipment, and R-717 is in widespread use. R-744 for
refrigerated transport and HCs for ice machines have been tested and,
although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the United
States. In these two end-uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is
similar to that for supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of
GWPs. Several HFC blends with GWPs considerably lower than those of R-
404A and R-507A are being used in retail food refrigeration, especially
in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end-
uses mentioned; however, we have limited knowledge of their use in
these other end-uses. For that reason, we have not proposed finding R-
404A and R-507A unacceptable in these other end-uses.
EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low-GWP
refrigerants (e.g., 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
other high-GWP blends unacceptable in any or all of these four end-
uses--cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport,
and industrial process refrigeration. EPA also solicits comments on the
feasibility of the proposed deadlines and whether earlier or later
dates would be more appropriate.
D. Foam Blowing Agents
EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a
narrowed use limit, for HFC-134a and blends thereof in all foam blowing
end-uses, and for HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa and blends thereof for all foam
blowing end-uses except spray foam applications. Specific end-uses and
applications include: (1) Rigid
[[Page 46150]]
polyurethane appliance foam; (2) flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid
polyurethane: commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; (4) rigid
polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; (6) integral skin polyurethane;
(7) polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) polystyrene: extruded boardstock
and billet; (9) polyolefin; and (10) phenolic insulation board and
bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings from
acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the
following end-uses as of January 1, 2017: (1) Formacel B in polystyrene
(extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane
appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration,
and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin
polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel
Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane
(commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane
slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin
polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) HFC-143a in
phenolic insulation board and bunstock.
1. Background
Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are
manufactured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the
material's structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the
markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely varied.
The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation,
cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation
devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid
with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can
contribute to the foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are open-
celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is
blown, as for flexible foams.
Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for
these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used given their
favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled substances
under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA
including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for
CFCs and section 605(b)-(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs
under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the
CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products blown with
class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class
II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products
as defined at 40 CFR 82.62.
The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non-ODS blowing
agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc),
hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. In addition,
low-GWP fluorinated compounds in use include 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 following end-uses:
a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in
domestic refrigerators and freezers.
b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and
sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall,
pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated
transport vehicles.
c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for
panels and pipes.
d. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
includes insulation for roofing and walls.
e. Flexible polyurethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair
cushions, and shoe soles.
f. Integral skin polyurethane includes car steering wheels,
dashboards, and shoe soles.
g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging and
buoyancy or flotation.
h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation
for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.
i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.
j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for
roofing and walls.
2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable for HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and any blends
containing these blowing agents for all foam end-uses and applications
except for spray foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose to
change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following
foam blowing agents in the following end-uses: (1) Formacel B in
polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial
refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock,
integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin;
(3) Formacel Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid
polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid
polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet),
integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4)
HFC-143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January
1, 2017--that is, it would be prohibited to blow foam using these
blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In addition,
we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam
products or products containing closed cell foam that contain any of
the blowing agents listed as unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment
on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in
particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. Finally, we are
providing a limited exception to the date when the unacceptability
determinations apply for certain military and space applications where
there is documentation that additional time is required to complete
qualification testing.
a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The
opportunity to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2, and water in the
1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has
allowed many foam blowing end-uses and applications to transition from
ODS, thus reducing the end-uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have
been a low-GWP and cost-effective alternative available for large parts
of the foam sector, particularly in flexible polyurethane foam,
polystyrene sheet foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams.
HCs also are used in most of the other end-uses, but less extensively
than in these six end-uses. However, flammability of foam blowing
agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray foam
applications.
Over the past ten years both fluorinated and non-fluorinated
alternatives have expanded both the list of options for specific foam
uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are now used has
also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been
introduced during the
[[Page 46151]]
past several years. Many end users have indicated interest in these
newer alternatives, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam
products manufactured with the foam blowing agent. Production volumes
for some of these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace
with growing demand. For example, HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene have recently been listed as acceptable. HFO-
1336mzz(Z) is currently under review by EPA as a substitute foam
blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the
flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end-uses where
flammable agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for
retooling facilities that use the blowing agents or that incorporate
the foam product into another product will vary depending on the
substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as
household refrigerator manufacturers have already begun the testing of
and transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes for foam blowing.
b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam
blowing agents?
i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs
ranging from 794 for HFC-365mfc to 4470 for HFC-143a, which is
significantly higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes. The
HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs that
vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for
blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for
Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z-6, 740 to 1030 for blends of
HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial
blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc. All of the HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find
unacceptable consist of compounds that are non-ozone-depleting and are
VOC-exempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these
alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC-
134a, HFC-143a, and HFC-245fa can be used consistent with their
respective AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in
the foam end-uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents
that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC-134a,
HFC-245fa, Formacel TI, blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-
245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and
the remainder HFC-365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC-365mfc and
HFC-143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 may be flammable
depending on the exact composition, with the less flammable or
nonflammable formulations having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as
1300 to 1500.
In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential
climate impact from foam blowing agents is the insulation value of the
blown foam. This may matter for rigid insulation foams, where the foam
blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid
polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane spray, commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and
other foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet; rigid
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic
insulation board and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation
value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from power plants if
the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency and less need
for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons
and CO2 may provide less insulation value to an insulation
foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent information on some of the
newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as HFO-
1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these
foam blowing agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than
their HCFC and HFC predecessors and therefore may be of interest to
companies considering transition to more energy-efficient options. In
addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value
may still not impact the foam's overall energy efficiency where thicker
foam is used. Because of the variety of foam blowing agents available
in each end-use, we believe that there are sufficient options that will
not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions.
ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
For rigid polyurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6
\49\), CO2, vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM,
Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives (in-kind
and not-in-kind) with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is
not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be
used for blowing appliance foam consistent with required or recommended
workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing
agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the
definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene contains chlorine and has measurable
ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51 is roughly one
order of magnitude higher than the ODP of HFC-134a which is considered
to have zero ODP.\52\ Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's impact
on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically
insignificant.\53\ Of the various options listed in this paragraph,
ecomate\TM,\ Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the
flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the
process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use,
HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including
propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and
hexane.
\50\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
\51\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
\52\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
\53\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Flexible Polyurethane
For flexible polyurethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair
cushions, shoe soles and other applications, acceptable substitutes
include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), Exxsol blowing agents,
CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., methyl formate), HFC-152a,
and water with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed
for flexible polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for
blowing flexible polyurethane foam consistent with required or
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt
[[Page 46152]]
from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and
hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
For rigid polyurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for
roofing, wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable substitutes include HFC-
245fa, commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, containing 7% to
13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, blends of HFC-365mfc and at
least 5% HFC-245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents,
ecomate\TM\, 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 used for spray foam
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain
compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the
substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene
has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance
foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be
statistically insignificant.
Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications,
in part because they are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with
spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substances such as
tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to assist
end-users in addressing the flammability hazards of the flammable
compounds in this end-use (Exxsol blowing agents and ecomate\TM\);
however, these alternatives have limited, if any, use in spray foams in
the United States.54 55 Flammability risks are more
difficult to mitigate than in most other foam applications because,
unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation can be
provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the
lower flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all
electrical fixtures explosion proof when applying spray foam in place
in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC-134a and
blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are
proposing that HFC-245fa; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-
227ea, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich
Panels
For rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and
sandwich panels, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal
doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy, and refrigerated transport
vehicles, acceptable alternatives include saturated light HCs (C3-C6),
ecomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents,
methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing foam for commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels,
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these
substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone
abundance is expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various
substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol
blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In these
applications, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel Z-6 and
Formacel B have significantly higher GWPs than the other available
substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing
overall risks to human health and the environment.
vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
For rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light
HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents,
methyl formate, 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 used for blowing slabstock foam consistent with
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception
of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds
that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed
above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as
discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on
global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically
insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph,
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6
have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock
For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock,
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, 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
[[Page 46153]]
alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's
impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be
statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate
are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability
hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately
addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In
this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have significantly
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and
the environment.
viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
For polystyrene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include
saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol
blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl formate), and HFC-152a. These
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing extruded polystyrene foam consistent with required or
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes
listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a,
and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel
TI and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other
available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby
increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
For polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable
substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6),
CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl
formate), HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze(E). These substitutes have GWPs
ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these
alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits.
With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes
contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the
substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of
the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, 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 B and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than
the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph,
thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
In integral skin polyurethane, which includes foam in car steering
wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone,
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing
agents, methyl formate, ecomate\TM\, 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
polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace
exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents,
these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition
of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone
abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various
substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate,
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and hydrocarbons are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, 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.
xi. Polyolefin Foam
For polyolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2,
water, ecomate\TM\, 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 alternatives with GWPs
that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing polyolefin foam
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of HCs, HC blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, these
alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP
of zero. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\,
Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the
others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable
compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of
meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a,
Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have significantly
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and
the environment.
xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes
insulation for roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes include
saturated light HCs (C3-C6),), CO2, 2-chloropropane, water,
Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), and HFC-152a. These
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended workplace
exposure limits. With the exception of 2-chloropropane, hydrocarbons,
and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes
listed in this paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomate\TM\, 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
[[Page 46154]]
addressed in the process of meeting OSHA 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, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
For the foam end-uses listed above, both fluorinated and non-
fluorinated substitutes are being used today in the U.S.; EPA
recognizes that the formulator and systems house will consider other
criteria including toxicity, flammability, and local air quality.
However, given the range of substitutes available, we believe that
there are other alternatives available for formulators or systems
houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than
the HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing
foams?
EPA is proposing to regulate foam blowing agents contained in the
cells of closed cell foams and proposes to consider these foams and
products containing them to be subject to the proposed unacceptability
determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in
manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act
refers to ``replacing'' ODS with substitutes. In the case of the foam
blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted unacceptability
determinations as referring solely to replacing the foam blowing agent
and have not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with
foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used in or
imported into the United States. However, products made with
unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example,
refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with the unacceptable
blowing agent HCFC-141b may still be imported into the United States,
even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC-141b as an unacceptable
foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). Under this
interpretation of our SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final
the foam blowing agents we are proposing to find unacceptable would be
prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but foam
products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture
made with these unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation
for closed cell foams that would result in prohibiting both import and
manufacture of products made with the blowing agents proposed to be
unacceptable. This approach would have an effect similar to the earlier
nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam
blowing agents, prohibiting import and distribution of such products.
For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained in cells after
the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end-uses
that contain closed-cell foams include rigid polyurethane appliance
foam; rigid polyurethane: Spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich
panels; rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene (extruded
sheet); polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and
phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses
containing open cell foams include flexible polyurethane and integral
skin polyurethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent
is not retained and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open
cell product blown with an unacceptable foam blowing agent (or products
containing such an open cell foam) would not contain any of that agent
when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would
still retain some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is
seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam
blowing agent to apply to products with closed cell foam since the
product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus
is replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on
whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in
particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so.
d. When would the listings change?
Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for
foam blowing agents as of January 1, 2017. Based on information
concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA believes this date
allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing
agent. However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of
January 1, 2016. The foam industry was able to convert from HCFC-142b
and HCFC-22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA's proposed
unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final
determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the
unacceptable HCFCs must transition by March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA
also provided an additional 18 months for this transition for marine
flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1,
2010, for a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in extruded
polystyrene foam boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is
requesting comment on using January 1, 2017 as the date on which foam
must not be blown using HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HFC-143a and
blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6. We are
also seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by
January 1, 2016. In particular, we request comment on whether these
dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the foam
product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial
refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there
are any specific foam end-uses or applications that may require
additional time and, if so, how long and why. Based on this
information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing
agents in specific end-uses or could provide a different date for use
to be unacceptable.
e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related
Applications
EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability
determination for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or
space- and aeronautics-related applications. EPA is also proposing that
the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a
narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and
aeronautics application would need to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible and document the results of their
analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several
unique performance requirements related to weapon systems that require
extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFC-containing
foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are
anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the
proposed January 1, 2017 date, in a very small number of cases, the
timeframes associated with testing and qualifications for weapon
systems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower-GWP
alternatives may not be available at this time in certain specialty
applications with unique military requirements such as undersea;
aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare systems.
In the case of space- and aeronautics-related
[[Page 46155]]
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 systems.
Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a
restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category must make a
reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives
are not technically feasible. Users are expected to undertake a
thorough technical 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.
Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space-
and aeronautics- related application would need to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of
their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation should include
descriptions of:
Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for
military or space- and aeronautics-related applications In addition,
EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for this narrowed use
limitation, recognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in
advance of 2022, the Agency may need to revisit and adjust the end
date.
f. Summary
EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam
end-uses. In particular, EPA is interested in whether there are
specific uses other than spray foam that require the use of HFC-134a,
HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B,
Formacel TI, or Formacel Z-6 for reasons of fire safety or technical
feasibility. We request comment on whether closed cell foam products
and products containing closed cell foams should be subject to the
unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation
would otherwise only apply to the use of the foam blowing agent. We
also seek comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam
blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open
cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing
so. EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an
appropriate length of time for transition and whether there should be
different dates for certain foam end-uses due to technical challenges
that may exist for some foam end-uses but not all. EPA is also
interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in
sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe
proposed in this action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed
exception for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications
as described above.
VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?
EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain
end-uses because the three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in
CAA section 605(a) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82
subpart A. Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA
section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products
containing or manufactured with these three HCFCs. We believe it is
important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these HCFCs may be
used when another program under title VI of the CAA would prevent such
use. Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs
addressed in this rule are listed as acceptable or acceptable subject
to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire
suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives,
coatings and inks sectors. This in addition to the proposed
unacceptability of HCFC-containing refrigerants in MVAC systems (see
section V.B. of this preamble).
A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three
HCFCs and in which end-uses?
EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
and HCFC-22, as 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 days following
issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ These three HCFCs have previously been listed as
unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?
EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and
blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other
Title VI regulations, specifically section 605 and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C.
1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With Regulations
Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into
interstate commerce or the use of any class II substance as of January
1, 2015, unless such substance:
(1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled;
(2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in
the production of other chemicals;
(3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to
January 1, 2020; or
(4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for
nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c).
Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the
prohibitions on use and introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC-
141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b that has not 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.
[[Page 46156]]
Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale
and distribution, as well as offer for sale and distribution, in
interstate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized dispensers
containing a class II substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic foam
products containing or manufactured with a class II substance, with
limited exceptions.\57\ This statutory prohibition took effect on
January 1, 1994. Consequently, most foams and aerosols have not used
HCFCs since 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and
interstate commerce prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g),
EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP listings for HCFCs other than
HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends containing those substances at
this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later
rulemaking as appropriate.
2. Anticipated Effects
EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant
effect on the use of HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 since existing
regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless used, recovered,
and recycled) in almost all end-uses in the United States (see 40 CFR
82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not
aware of anyone using recovered, recycled or reclaimed HCFC-22, HCFC-
141b and HCFC-142b. In addition, as a result of the use restrictions in
CAA section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and
distribution restrictions on certain products containing or
manufactured with these substances in CAA section 610 and 40 CFR part
82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition
to non-ODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have
been replaced by HCs, HFO-1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and HFC-152a,
excluding some niche technical applications that still rely on HCFCs
not addressed in this action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have largely
been replaced by, among other things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice-
1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any remaining HCFC use in this sector is
limited to HCFCs not addressed in this action. For these reasons, we
believe it is technically feasible for sources to comply with the
proposed changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 days
of a final rule issued consistent with this proposal.
EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-
141b, -142b, -22, and blends containing these substances. EPA is
particularly interested in comments on both the scope of the proposed
modifications and the timing.
VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?
The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and
imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in
whether the listing decisions, if finalized as proposed, would apply to
their products. EPA has previously responded to comments about the
applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most
recently, in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a
comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be
allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United
States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being
established in that rule). EPA stated that:
Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is
applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate
commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The
distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or
manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory,
possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the
product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a
product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the
entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases
the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States
Customs clearance. This definition applies to any appliances produced
in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76
FR 78846)
Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to
appliances being exported.
The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program
varies. Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and appliances typically
field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed
and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from
products such as aerosols or foams because of the potential for
servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of
motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that
there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP
alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the
transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different
global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to
transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several
years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have
not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives
for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC-134a would be listed as
unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability listing would
include MVACs that will be exported.
EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports.
However, EPA understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for
servicing appliances in markets outside the U.S. EPA believes there is
ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure to
be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this
topic.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' It raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
EPA conducted an analysis \58\ that considered the economic impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities, as further discussed in the
section C below. The analysis also considered that, specific to
refrigerants used in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured
light-duty vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a
transition to alternative refrigerants and there are costs associated
with those substitutions. Based on recent information in manufacturers'
product
[[Page 46157]]
plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to meet
the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC-134a beyond MY 2021 for
a limited number of their models. However, we believe there is time for
any such manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments. These
manufacturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal
(representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC-134a by MY
2021), but there would be environmental benefits in the form of
increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC systems which would not
otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their
plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of
MVAC refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This proposed rule is an Agency determination. It contains no new
requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting
and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to
use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and
48 CFR Chapter 15.C.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After conducting an analysis \59\ that considered the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The requirements of this proposed rule with
respect to HFCs, if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers
of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food
refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products
containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, polyurethane, and
polystyrene foams. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect
to HCFCs, if finalized as proposed, would affect manufacturers of
aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives,
coatings, and inks. This rule's provisions do not create enforceable
requirements for refrigeration and air conditioning technicians, but
they would indirectly affect technicians servicing motor vehicle air
conditioning systems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending
machines where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC
equipment owner, purchases servicing equipment for different
refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are
minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required by
this rule are already occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light
duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social responsibility initiatives
(e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and
because many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for
these refrigeration or air conditioning equipment types. Further, most
acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using
equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is
no significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes
proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HFC-134a as
a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a as a foam
blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant portion of
the businesses regulated under this rule are not small businesses
(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About 500,000 small
businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99%
of small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be
expected to experience zero compliance costs. EPA continues to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, in
particular technical challenges, including time to transition, that may
exist for some small entities but not all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule
related to prohibiting certain substitutes, including HFC-134a, R-404A
and R-507A, would require new equipment to be manufactured using other
available options but would not require changes to existing equipment
that is already manufactured or purchased. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly
to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental
entities.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to
facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from State and
local officials.
[[Page 46158]]
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 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 government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule restricts the use
of certain substitutes that have greater overall risks for human health
and the environment, primarily due to their high global warming
potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate
benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future
generations. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-
reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to
the alternatives addressed in this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are
related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air conditioning, a
number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that
are proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives
are as energy efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes
being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rule does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This proposed rule, if finalized, would prohibit a number
of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP
emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and
provide climate benefits.
IX. References
This preamble references the following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System, Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0198.
Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries
of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Ben and Jerry's, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is
accessible at http://www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers.
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%20Commercial%20Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible
at: http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler
Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January 22, 2014.
This document is accessible at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol
Pressurized Products Survey--61st Annual Products Survey. April 15,
2012.
Daimler, ``Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler's Safety
Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,'' Stephen
Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This
document is accessible at http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0.
Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM.
Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.
EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. 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.
[[Page 46159]]
EPA Memorandum: ``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning
Alternative Refrigerant Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview--Honeywell Solstice[supreg]
Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April,
2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options
to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe
K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M.,
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and
Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and
Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate
with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile News, December 30,
2013. This document is accessible at http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options
Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document
is accessible at http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel,
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible
at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf.
Velders, G. J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S.O.
Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to
future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954. Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011.
``Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on
Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University
of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.
Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From Daimler R-
1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive Engineering
International, April 2, 2013. This document is accessible at http://articles.sae.org/11870/.
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Recycling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Dated: July 9, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 82 as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
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
0
2. Amend Subpart G by adding Appendix U to read as follows:
Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82-- Unacceptable Substitutes and
Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions Listed in the [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Final Rule,
Effective [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
[[Page 46160]]
Table 1--Aerosols--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants........................ HFC-125............... Unacceptable as of HFC-125 has a Chemical
January 1, 2016 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........................ HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-
RULE] 142b for aerosols is
prohibited as of January
1, 2010 under EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part
82 subpart A. These
propellants have ozone
depletion potentials of
0.055 and 0.065,
respectively.
Solvents........................... HCFC-141b............. Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-141b for
RULE] 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants.................... HFC-134a.......... Acceptable subject As of January 1, HFC-134a has a
to use conditions. 2016, acceptable Chemical
only for use in: Abstracts Service
Metered Registry Number
dose inhalers for (CAS Reg. No.) of
the treatment of 811-97-2 and it
asthma and chronic is also known by
obstructive the name 1,1,1,2-
pulmonary disease, tetrafluoropropan
allergic rhinitis, e. HFC-134a has a
and other diseases relatively high
where aerosols can GWP of 1,430. Use
be used for is allowed for
systemic delivery the specified
through lung, uses because of
nose, or other the greater
organs. technical and
cleaning safety demands in
products for these
removal of grease, applications
flux and other compared to other
soils from aerosol
electrical applications.
equipment or It is prohibited
electronics. to use aerosol
lubricants products other
for electrical than those
equipment or specified here
electronics. using HFC-134a
sprays for that are
aircraft manufactured on
maintenance. or after January
pesticides 1, 2016. Aerosol
for use near products using
electrical wires this propellant
or in aircraft, in that are
total release manufactured
insecticide prior to January
foggers, or in 1, 2016 may be
certified organic sold, imported,
use pesticides for exported,
which EPA has distributed and
specifically used after that
disallowed all date.
other lower-GWP
propellantsmold
release agents.
lubricants
and cleaners for
spinnerettes for
synthetic fabrics
duster
sprays
specifically for
removal of dust
from photographic
negatives,
semiconductor
chips, and
specimens under
electron
microscopes
document
preservation
sprays
wound care
sprays topical
coolant sprays for
pain
alleviationproduct
s for removing
bandage adhesives
from skin.
[[Page 46161]]
Propellants.................... HFC-227ea......... Acceptable subject As of January 1, HFC-227ea has a
to use conditions. 2016, acceptable Chemical
only for use in Abstracts Service
metered dose Registry Number
inhalers for the (CAS Reg. No.) of
treatment of 431-89-0 and it
asthma and chronic is also known by
obstructive the name
pulmonary disease. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-
heptafluoropropan
e. HFC-227ea has
a relatively high
GWP of 3,220. Use
is allowed for
metered dose
inhalers because
of the greater
technical and
safety demands in
this application
compared to other
aerosol
applications.
It is prohibited
to use aerosol
products other
than metered dose
inhalers using
HFC-227ea that
are manufactured
on or after
January 1, 2016.
Aerosol products
using this
propellant that
are manufactured
prior to January
1, 2016 may be
sold, imported,
exported,
distributed and
used after that
date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Refrigeration and Air Conditioning--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration (new and R-404A................ Unacceptable as of R-404A is a blend, by
retrofit). January 1, 2016. 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
environment.
Retail food refrigeration (new and R-507A................ Unacceptable as of R-507A is a blend, by
retrofit). January 1, 2016. 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 HFC-227ea, R-407B, R- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(condensing units and supermarket 421B, R-422A, R-422C, January 1, 2016. GWPs ranging from 2,729 to
systems)(new). R-422D, R-428A, R- 3,607. Other substitutes
434A. are available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment.
Retail food refrigeration R-407B, R-421B, R- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
(condensing units and supermarket 422A, R-422C, R-422D, January 1, 2016. GWPs ranging from 2,729 to
systems)(retrofit). R-428A, R-434A. 3,607. Other substitutes
are available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment.
Retail food refrigeration (stand- HFC-134a.............. Unacceptable as of HFC-134a has a Chemical
alone units only) (new only). January 1, 2016. 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.
Retail food refrigeration- (stand- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
alone units only) (new only). 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, January 1, 2016. GWPs ranging from
R-125/290/134a/600a approximately 550 to
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 3,607. Other substitutes
R-407A, R-407B, R- are available for this end-
407C, R-407F, R-410A, use with lower overall
R-410B, R-417A, R- risk to human health and
421A, R-421B, R-422A, the environment.
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.
Vending machines (new and retrofit) R-404A................ Unacceptable as of R-404A is a blend, by
January 1, 2016. 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.
[[Page 46162]]
Vending machines (new and retrofit) R-507A................ Unacceptable as of R-507A is a blend, by
January 1, 2016. weight, of 50% HFC-125 and
50% HFC-143a. It has a GWP
of approximately 3,990.
Other substitutes are
available for this end-use
with lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment.
Vending machines (new only)........ HFC-134a.............. Unacceptable as of HFC-134a has a Chemical
January 1, 2016. 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 Unacceptable as of These refrigerants have
B, KDD6, R-125/290/ January 1, 2016. GWPs ranging from
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ approximately 550 to
42.5/1.5), R-407C, R- 3,085. Other substitutes
410A, R-410B, R-417A, are available for this end-
R-421A, R-422B, R- use with lower overall
422C, R-422D, R-426A, risk to human health and
R-437A, R-438A, RS-24 the environment.
(2002 formulation),
SP34E.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new HFC-134a.............. Unacceptable as of HFC-134a has a Chemical
equipment in passenger cars and Model Year (MY) 2021. Abstracts Service Registry
light-duty trucks only). 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.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new R-406A, R-414A (HCFC Unacceptable as of MY These refrigerants all
equipment in passenger cars and Blend Xi, GHG-X4), R- 2017. contain HCFCs. They have
light-duty trucks only). 414B (HCFC Blend GWPs ranging from 1,480 to
Omicron), HCFC Blend 2,340 and ODPs ranging
Delta (Free Zone), from 0.012 to 0.056. Other
Freeze 12, GHG-X5, substitutes are available
HCFC Blend Lambda for this end-use with
(GHG-HP). lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new R-416A (FRIGC FR-12, Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively
equipment in passenger cars and HCFC Blend Beta). 2017. high GWP of approximately
light-duty trucks only). 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 SP34E................. Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively
equipment in passenger cars and 2017. high GWP of approximately
light-duty trucks only). 1,410. Other substitutes
are available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment.
Motor vehicle air conditioning (new R-426A (RS-24, new Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively
equipment in passenger cars and formulation). 2017. high GWP of approximately
light-duty trucks only). 1,510. Other substitutes
are available for this end-
use with lower overall
risk to human health and
the environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Narrowed use Further
End-use Substitute Decision limits information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
245fa, HFC-365mfc to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
and blends Limits. only in military retain the
thereof; Formacel or space- and results of their
TI, and Formacel aeronautics- technical
Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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.
[[Page 46163]]
Rigid Polyurethane: Spray....... HFC-134a and Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
Formacel TI. to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
Limits. only in military retain the
or space- and results of their
aeronautics- technical
related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason
for rejection of
other
alternatives,
e.g.,
performance,
technical or
safety standards;
and/or
Anticipated date
other substitutes
will be available
and projected
time for
switching.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
Refrigeration and Sandwich 245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
Panels. 365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof; or space- and results of their
Formacel TI, and aeronautics- technical
Formacel Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof. or space- and results of their
aeronautics- technical
related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason
for rejection of
other
alternatives,
e.g.,
performance,
technical or
safety standards;
and/or
Anticipated date
other substitutes
will be available
and projected
time for
switching.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
and Other. 245fa, HFC-365mfc to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
and blends Limits. only in military retain the
thereof; Formacel or space- and results of their
TI, and Formacel aeronautics- technical
Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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 HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
Polyisocyanurate Laminated 245fa, HFC-365mfc to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
Boardstock. and blends Limits. only in military retain the
thereof. or space- and results of their
aeronautics- technical
related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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.
[[Page 46164]]
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet..... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof, or space- and results of their
Formacel TI, and aeronautics- technical
Formacel Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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 HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
and Billet. 245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof, or space- and results of their
Formacel B, and aeronautics- technical
Formacel Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason
for rejection of
other
alternatives,
e.g.,
performance,
technical or
safety standards;
and/or
Anticipated date
other substitutes
will be available
and projected
time for
switching.
Integral Skin Polyurethane...... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof; or space- and results of their
Formacel TI, and aeronautics- technical
Formacel Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
245fa, HFC- to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof; or space- and results of their
Formacel TI, and aeronautics- technical
Formacel Z-6. related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. substitute is
needed;
Substitutes
examined and
rejected;
Reason
for rejection of
other
alternatives,
e.g.,
performance,
technical or
safety standards;
and/or
Anticipated date
other substitutes
will be available
and projected
time for
switching.
Phenolic Insulation Board and HFC-143a, HFC- Acceptable Subject Acceptable until Users are required
Bunstock. 134a, HFC-245fa, to Narrowed Use January 1, 2022 to document and
HFC-365mfc, and Limits. only in military retain the
blends thereof. or space- and results of their
aeronautics- technical
related investigation of
applications alternatives for
where reasonable the purpose of
efforts have been demonstrating
made to ascertain compliance.
that other Information
alternatives are should include
not technically descriptions of:
feasible due to Process
performance or or product in
safety which the
requirements. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All................................ Blends of HCFC-141b... Unacceptable effective HCFC-141b has an ozone
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER depletion potential of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL 0.11 under the Montreal
RULE]. Protocol. EPA previously
found HCFC-141b
unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses (appendix
M to subpart G of 40 CFR
part 82). HCFC-141b has an
ODP of 0.11.
[[Page 46165]]
Polyolefin......................... HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
and blends thereof. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-
RULE]. 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, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed with lower overall risk to
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Spray.......... HFC-134a and Formacel Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
TI. January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
except where allowed with lower overall risk to
under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels. HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof; except where allowed with lower overall risk to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use human health and the
Formacel Z-6. limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Flexible Polyurethane.............. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof. except where allowed with lower overall risk to
under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
Other. HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
thereof; Formacel TI, except where allowed with lower overall risk to
and Formacel Z-6. under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
Polyisocyanurate Laminated HFC-365mfc and blends January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
Boardstock. thereof. except where allowed with lower overall risk to
under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet........ HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof, except where allowed with lower overall risk to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use human health and the
Formacel Z-6. limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
and Billet. HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof, except where allowed with lower overall risk to
Formacel B, and under a narrowed use human health and the
Formacel Z-6. limit. environment, including
lower GWP.
Integral Skin Polyurethane......... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof; except where allowed with lower overall risk to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use human health and the
Formacel Z-6. limit. environment Other
substitutes are available
for this end-use with
lower overall risk to
human health and the
environment, including
lower GWP.
Polyolefin......................... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
HFC-365mfc, and January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
blends thereof; except where allowed with lower overall risk to
Formacel TI, and under a narrowed use human health and the
Formacel Z-6. limit. 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 HFC-143a, HFC-134a, Unacceptable as of Other substitutes are
Bunstock. HFC-245fa, HFC- January 1, 2017 available for this end-use
365mfc, and blends except where allowed with lower overall risk to
thereof. under a narrowed use human health and the
limit. environment, including
GWP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Flooding..................... HCFC-22............... Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-22 for total
RULE]. flooding fire suppression
and explosion protection
is prohibited as of
January 1, 2010 under
EPA's regulations at 40
CFR part 82 subpart A.
This chemical has an ozone
depletion potential of
0.055.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46166]]
Table 7--Sterilants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterilants......................... Blends containing HCFC- Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
22. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-22 for
RULE]. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Adhesives, Coatings and Inks--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives, coatings and inks....... HCFC-141b and blends Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into
thereof. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER interstate commerce of
PUBLICATION OF FINAL virgin HCFC-141b for
RULE]. adhesives, coatings and
inks is prohibited as of
January 1, 2015 under
EPA's regulations at 40
CFR part 82 subpart A.
This chemical has an ozone
depletion potential of
0.11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-18494 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P