[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86778-86895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25167]



[[Page 86777]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 231

December 1, 2016

Part II





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 82





 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes; 
Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 
Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition 
for Propane; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 86778]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9952-18-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS80


Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Listings of Substitutes; 
Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for 
Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy 
Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition 
for Propane

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists certain 
substances as acceptable, subject to use conditions; lists several 
substances as unacceptable; and changes the listing status for certain 
substances from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use 
limits, or to unacceptable. This action also exempts propane in certain 
refrigeration end-uses from the Clean Air Act section 608 prohibition 
on venting, release, or disposal. In addition, this action applies 
unacceptability determinations for foam-blowing agents to closed cell 
foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are 
manufactured or imported using these foam blowing agents.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2017. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (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 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric 
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address: 
[email protected]. Notices and rulemakings under EPA's 
Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's 
Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the 
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the 
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance 
to or remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP 
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have 
bearing on this action?
IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and 
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?
    A. Climate Action Plan
    B. Summary of Petitions
V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section 
608?
    A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, 
release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes 
under CAA section 608?
    B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, release, or 
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?
VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
    A. Refrigeration and Stationary Air Conditioning
    1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Commercial Ice Machines, 
Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
    2. Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA 
Section 608 for the End-Uses in the New SNAP Listing
    3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants for 
Retrofits in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps
    4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and R-443A in New 
Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage 
Warehouses, and Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
    5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Centrifugal Chillers and for New Positive Displacement Chillers
    6. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Cold Storage Warehouses
    7. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Retail Food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and 
Dispensing Equipment)
    8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
    B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA's final decision?
    3. How is EPA responding to comments?
    C. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents 
for Rigid PU Spray Foam
    2. Revision to Change of Status Date for Narrowed Use Limits for 
Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
    3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene Chloride in Foams
    4. Closed Cell Foam Products
    D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
    1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
    2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for 
Total Flooding
    3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
    A. General Comments
    1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
    2. Proposed Status Change Dates
    B. Authority
    1. General Authority
    2. GWP Considerations
    3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
    4. Petitions
    5. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
    C. Cost and Economic Impacts
    1. Costs of Rule
    2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening 
Analysis
    D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes
    1. General Comments
    2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
    3. Energy Efficiency
    E. Interactions With Other Rules
    F. Other Suggestions or Requests
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

[[Page 86779]]

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
IX. References

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is required to 
evaluate substitutes \1\ to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) for their 
risks to human health and the environment. EPA reviews substitutes 
within a comparative risk framework. More specifically, section 612 
provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has 
determined that there are other available alternatives that pose less 
overall risk to human health and the environment. Thus, EPA's 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which implements 
section 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives. Instead, 
the list evolves as EPA makes decisions informed by our overall 
understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as 
our current knowledge about other alternatives. In the more than twenty 
years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has modified the 
SNAP lists many times, most often by expanding the list of acceptable 
substitutes. However, in some cases, EPA has modified the SNAP list by 
listing a substitute as unacceptable for one or more end-uses or by 
restricting the use of a previously listed substitute by changing its 
status for a particular end-use to unacceptable, acceptable subject to 
use conditions, or acceptable subject to narrowed use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``alternatives'' and ``substitutes'' are used 
interchangeably in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past twenty years, the SNAP program has played an 
important role in assisting with a continuous smooth transition to 
safer alternatives. Since the first SNAP framework rule published in 
1994, which provided confidence and certainty by identifying safer 
alternatives in key consumer and industrial uses, the SNAP program has 
ensured that businesses and consumers have access to information about 
suitable alternatives. The SNAP program works with many stakeholders, 
domestically and abroad, to continuously evaluate and provide updates 
on safer alternatives and new technologies. Thanks to these efforts and 
the work of individuals, businesses, and organizations, the transitions 
generally have been successful.
    When reviewing a substitute, EPA compares the risk posed by that 
substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives and determines 
whether that specific substitute under review poses significantly more 
risk than other available or potentially available alternatives for the 
same use. EPA recently has begun to review the lists in a broader 
manner to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the 
program pose significantly more risk than substitutes that have more 
recently been added. As with initial listing decisions, EPA bases 
decisions to change the status of an already listed alternative on the 
same comparative risk framework.
    In this action, EPA is listing a number of substances as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions; listing several substances as 
unacceptable; and changing the listing status for certain substances 
from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits or to 
unacceptable. We performed a comparative risk analysis, based on our 
criteria for review, with other alternatives for the relevant end-uses. 
For the substances addressed in this action, EPA found significant 
potential differences in risk as compared to other available or 
potentially available substitutes with respect to one or more specific 
criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, or local air quality. In some 
cases, those risks could be addressed through use conditions and EPA is 
listing several substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions. 
In other cases, the risks could not be adequately mitigated through use 
conditions and, in those cases, EPA is listing several new substitutes 
and changing the status of several existing substitutes to 
unacceptable. In a few instances, EPA established narrowed use limits 
for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific 
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications in the 
refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), and foam blowing sectors, on 
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for 
those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable 
alternatives were expected to become available over time. EPA is also 
applying unacceptability determinations for foam blowing agents to 
closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See 
section VI.C.4 for the details of this action. Additionally, EPA is 
exempting propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice 
machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature 
refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section 
608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.c for the details of this action.
    Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does 
not specify that any alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across 
all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the 
intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-
use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses. 
In the case of refrigeration and AC, we consider new equipment to be a 
separate end-use from retrofitting existing equipment with a different 
refrigerant from that for which the equipment was originally designed. 
EPA is not setting a ``risk threshold'' for any specific SNAP 
criterion, such that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a 
specified level of risk. Because the substitutes available and the 
types of risk they may pose vary by sector and end-use, our review 
focuses on the specific end-use and the alternatives for that end-use, 
including the other risks alternatives might pose. Thus, there is no 
bright line that can be established to apply to all sectors and end-
uses. Also, EPA recognizes that there are a range of substitutes with 
various uses that include both fluorinated (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons 
(HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., 
hydrocarbons (HCs) and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes 
that may pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. 
Consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically interpreted it 
under the SNAP program, this rule includes both initial listings and 
certain modifications to the current lists based on our evaluation of 
the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP criteria for 
evaluation and considering the current suite of other alternatives for 
the specific end-use at issue.
    The following is a summary of the actions taken in this rule.
1. Acceptable Alternatives, With Use Conditions, by End-Use (Initial 
Listings)
    (1) For refrigeration, EPA is listing as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, as of January 3, 2017:
     Propane in new commercial ice machines, new water coolers, 
and new

[[Page 86780]]

very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems, EPA is 
listing, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3, 
2017:
     HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured medium-duty passenger 
vehicles (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks, and complete HD vans.
    (3) For fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, EPA is 
listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3, 
2017:
     2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (2-BTP) as a total 
flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary power units 
(APUs) on aircraft; and
     2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld 
extinguishers in aircraft.
2. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Initial Listings)
    (1) For retrofit residential and light commercial AC and heat 
pumps--unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
     All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 
34-2013; and
     All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability 
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not 
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue 
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, 
Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
    (2) For new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, 
cold storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, and positive 
displacement chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 3, 
2017:
     Propylene and R-443A.
3. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Change of Listing Status)
    (1) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, 
except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, as of January 
1, 2024:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, 
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 
R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and 
THR-03.
    (2) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, 
as of January 1, 2024:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a 
(28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, 
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, 
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03.
    (3) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as acceptable, 
subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (4) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as 
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (5) For new cold storage warehouses, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2023:
     HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, 
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, 
and RS-44 (2003 composition).
    (6) For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing 
and dispensing equipment), EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of 
January 1, 2021:
     HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, 
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, 
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).
    (7) For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, 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.
    (8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high-pressure two-component spray 
foam, EPA is listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or 
space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; as 
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and 
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; and as 
unacceptable for military or space-and aeronautics-related applications 
as of January 1, 2025:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of 
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed 
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used 
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) For rigid PU low-pressure two-component spray foam, EPA is 
listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or space-and 
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; as acceptable, 
subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and aeronautics-
related applications, as of January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for 
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 
2025:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of 
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed 
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2021, may be used 
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (10) For rigid PU one-component foam sealants, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of 
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed 
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used 
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) For all foam blowing end-uses except for rigid PU spray foam, 
EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2025:
     HFCs and HFC blends previously listed as unacceptable as 
of January 1, 2022, for space-and aeronautics-related applications.
    (12) For flexible PU foam applications, EPA is listing as 
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
     Methylene chloride.
    While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing certain 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as unacceptable in fire suppression total 
flooding uses, EPA is not finalizing that change in this rulemaking.
4. Other Changes
    (1) For all foam blowing end-uses, EPA is prohibiting the use of 
closed cell

[[Page 86781]]

foam products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured 
with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the later of (A) 
December 1, 2017 or (B) the date of the unacceptability listing.
    (2) For fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is clarifying the 
listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X[supreg]), which was previously 
listed as both ``acceptable'' and ``acceptable, subject to use 
conditions,'' by removing the listing as ``acceptable, subject to use 
conditions,'' as of January 3, 2017.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Potential entities that may be affected by this rule include:

  Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
                   Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Description of regulated
       Category           NAICS code                entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction..........          238210  Alarm System (e.g., Fire,
                                         Burglar), Electric,
                                         Installation Only.
Industry..............          238220  Plumbing, Heating, And Air
                                         Conditioning Contractors.
Industry..............          325199  All Other Basic Organic Chemical
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325412  Pharmaceutical Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325998  All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
                                         Product and Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          326150  Urethane and Other Foam Product
                                         (Except Polystyrene)
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          332919  Nozzles, Firefighting,
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          333415  Manufacturers of Refrigerators,
                                         Freezers, and Other
                                         Refrigerating or Freezing
                                         Equipment, Electric or Other
                                         (NESOI); Heat Pumps Not
                                         Elsewhere Specified or
                                         Included; and Parts Thereof.
Industry..............          333415  Air Conditioning and Warm Air
                                         Heating Equipment and
                                         Commercial and Industrial
                                         Refrigeration Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          334290  Fire Detection and Alarm Systems
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          335222  Household Refrigerator and Home
                                         Freezer Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336120  Heavy-Duty Truck Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336211  Motor Vehicle Body
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3364  Aerospace Product and Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336411  Aircraft Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336413  Other Aircraft Parts and
                                         Auxiliary Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336992  Military Armored Vehicle, Tank,
                                         and Tank Component
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          339113  Surgical Appliance and Supplies
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          339999  Fire Extinguishers, Portable,
                                         Manufacturing.
Retail................          423620  Household Appliances, Electric
                                         Housewares, and Consumer
                                         Electronics Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment and
                                         Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
Retail................          423930  Recyclable Material Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          443111  Appliance Stores: Household-
                                         Type.
Retail................           44511  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445110  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445120  Convenience Stores.
Retail................           44521  Meat Markets.
Retail................           44522  Fish and Seafood Markets.
Retail................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable Markets.
Retail................          445291  Baked Goods Stores.
Retail................          445292  Confectionary and Nut Stores.
Retail................          445299  All Other Specialty Food Stores.
Retail................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores.
Retail................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug Stores.
Retail................           44711  Gasoline Stations With
                                         Convenience Stores.
Retail................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and
                                         Supercenters.
Retail................          452990  All Other General Merchandise
                                         Stores.
Services..............           72111  Hotels (Except Casino Hotels)
                                         and Motels.
Services..............           72112  Casino Hotels.
Retail................           72241  Drinking Places (Alcoholic
                                         Beverages).
Retail................          722513  Limited-Service Restaurants.
Retail................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and
                                         Buffets.
Retail................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage
                                         Bars.
Services..............           81119  Other Automotive Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          811412  Appliance Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          922160  Fire Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

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

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

AC--Air Conditioning
AAC--American Automotive Council
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AEGL--Acute Emergency Guideline Limits

[[Page 86782]]

AHIA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
AIRAH--Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 
Heating
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
APU--Auxiliary Power Unit
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
ASRAC--Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BTU--British Thermal Units
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification 
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CMAQ--Community Multiscale Air Quality
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CRP--Cooperative Research Programs
CSA--Canadian Standards Association
CUAC--Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner
CUHP--Commercial Unitary Heat Pump
DoD--United States Department of Defense
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct Expansion
EEAP--Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FMEA--Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FCA--Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
FR--Federal Register
FTA--Fault Tree Analysis
g--Gram
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GtCO2eq--Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
GWP--Global Warming Potential
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HBFC--Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HD--Heavy-Duty
HD GHG--Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
HF--Hydrogen Fluoride
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
IBC--International Building Code
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC--International Code Council
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IDLH--Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
IEC--International Electrochemical Commission
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IIAR--Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPLV--Integrated Part-Load Value
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
kPa--Kilopascal
kW--Kilowatt
LD--Light-Duty
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
LOAEL--Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MACT--Maximum Achievable Technology
MDPV--Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MIR--Maximum Incremental Reactivity
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIK--Not-In-Kind
NIOSH--National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOAEL--No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRDC--Natural Resource Defense Council
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--Perfluorocarbon
PMS--Pantone Matching System
ppb--Parts Per Billion
PPE--Personal Protective Equipment
ppm--Parts Per Million
PSM--Process Safety Management
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL--Recommended Exposure Limit
RfC--Reference Concentration
RMP--Risk Management Plan
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
RTOC--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical 
Options Committee
SARPS--Standards and Recommended Practices
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SAP--Scientific Assessment Panel
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SISNOSE--significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
STEL--Short-term Exposure Limit
SUV--Sport Utility Vehicles
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UNFCCC--United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

    CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating 
alternatives to ODS. This program is known as the SNAP program. The 
major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful 
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, 
hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and chlorobromomethane) or class II 
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) substance with any substitute that the 
Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or 
the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative 
that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment 
and (2) is currently or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes 
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a 
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The 
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable, 
subject to use conditions,'' and ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use 
limits'' substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 
subpart G.
3. Petition Process
    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to 
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in 
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny 
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the 
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-Day Notification
    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a 
chemical substitute for a class I substance to

[[Page 86783]]

notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing 
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new 
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also 
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety 
studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to 
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist 
users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing 
alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial 
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public 
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and 
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and 
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

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

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 
13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program 
and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable 
substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82 subpart G). 
These sectors include the following: Refrigeration and AC; foam 
blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; 
sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco 
expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that 
historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to 
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use 
sectors listed previously 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,\5\ it 
may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or 
end users \6\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute 
into interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once 
EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes 
complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP 
regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier 
than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the 
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 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 ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (40 CFR 82.180(b).\7\ Use conditions and narrowed use 
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained later 
in this action. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use 
conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant sector 
end-uses and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. 
Substitutes that are acceptable, subject to use restrictions may be 
used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are 
found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in 
the rulemaking adding them to the list of unacceptable substitutes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to 
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under 
this provision.
    \8\ 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 substitutes. EPA 
describes such substitutes as ``acceptable, subject to use 
conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the 
associated use conditions are in violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's 
SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use 
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use 
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an 
industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute 
subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable 
substitutes are available for their specific application.\9\ EPA 
describes these substitutes as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use 
limits.'' A person using a substitute that is acceptable, subject to 
narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not 
consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in 
violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 
82.174(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA 
established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a 
limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on 
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available 
for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but 
acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time, 
e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents 
in military applications or after development of improved servicing 
infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles 
destined for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \10\ provides 
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular 
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed 
circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the 
Federal Register. EPA uses notice and comment rulemaking to place any 
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute 
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or 
to

[[Page 86784]]

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

    \10\ In addition to acceptable commercially available 
alternatives, the SNAP program may consider potentially available 
alternatives. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially 
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety, 
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification 
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which 
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if 
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not 
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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), rulemaking 
procedures are not necessary to list substitutes that are acceptable 
without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction 
nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.
    Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information'' 
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional 
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements 
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. 
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other 
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by 
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The 
``further information'' classification does not necessarily include all 
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While 
the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA 
encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the 
``further information'' column in their use of these substitutes. In 
many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating 
practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or 
building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted, 
would not require the affected user to make significant changes in 
existing operating practices.

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

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the 
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are 
discussed in this section.
1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a Comparative Risk Framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds 
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the 
ozone-depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk 
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential (ODP) as 
well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and 
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be Risk Free To Be Found Acceptable
    Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly 
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk 
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of 
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment 
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may 
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound 
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose 
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
3. Restrict Those Substitutes That Are Significantly Worse
    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only 
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely 
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's 
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but one substitute 
for each end-use, and does not intend to restrict substitutes on the 
market unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is 
clearly more harmful to human health or the environment than other 
alternatives.
4. 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.
5. Provide the Regulated Community With Information as Soon as Possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community 
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as 
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of 
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable; 
acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to 
narrowed use limits, in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain 
lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, 
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
6. 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.
7. Defer to Other Environmental Regulations When Warranted
    In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed 
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes 
that address potential environmental or human health effects that may 
result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. 
For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased 
use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The 
SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into 
account when reviewing substitutes.

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

    EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute 
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at 
Sec.  82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and 
environmental effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability, 
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess 
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information 
including ODP, global warming potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability, 
and the potential for human exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria 
in the following groupings:
    1. Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the potential 
contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP 
program considers the ODP and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds 
to assess atmospheric effects.
    2. Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure assessments 
to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, 
consumers, the general population, and the environment may be exposed 
over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on 
personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure 
assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including:

[[Page 86785]]

     Releases in the workplace and in homes;
     Releases to ambient air and surface water;
     Releases from the management of solid wastes.
    3. 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:
     Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational 
exposure;
     Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-
carcinogenic effects on the general population;
     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 
(RELs) from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH), Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the 
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit 
values (TLVs) set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to 
the general population are not already established, then EPA derives 
these values following the Agency's peer review guidelines. Exposure 
information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis 
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to 
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk 
characterizations.
    4. Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety 
concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using 
data on:
     Flash point and flammability limits (e.g., ASHRAE 
flammability/combustibility classifications);
     Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
     Test data on flammability in consumer applications 
conducted by independent laboratories; and
     Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
    5. Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also examines 
other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and local air 
quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water 
may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are 
volatile organic compounds (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 (RCRA) subtitle C regulations.
    EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to 
evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to Sec.  
82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is distinct from consideration of costs 
associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute 
is being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 
at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part) 
(``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of the 
substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited 
to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to whether 
cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently or 
potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus 
precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of 
whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec.  612(c) . . . .'').
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much 
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many 
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure 
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater 
risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes, the 
SNAP criteria continue to be informed by our current overall 
understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our 
experience with and current knowledge about alternatives. Over time, 
the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and at the same 
time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the 
potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and 
alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

    Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP 
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and 
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the 
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision 
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to 
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a 
substance from either list. The second means is through the 
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before 
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant 
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by CAA section 612(e) for producers of 
substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases, 
by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to 
implement section 612(c).
    Finally, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have 
interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or 
unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or 
remove a substance from the SNAP lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18, 
1994). In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the 
SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other alternatives that pose 
lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining 
whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same 
consideration, but do so in the light of new data that may not have 
been available at the time of our original listing decision, including 
information on substitutes that was not included in our comparative 
review at the time of our initial listing decision and new information 
on substitutes previously reviewed.

G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance to or 
remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the 
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any 
substitute substance where it finds that there are other alternatives 
that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The 
initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the 
environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers 
in the comparative risk framework it uses to determine whether there 
are other alternatives that pose significantly lower risk than the 
substitute under review. EPA makes decisions based on the particular 
end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found 
certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to 
use restrictions. In the decades since ODS were first invented in the 
1920s, American consumers relied on products using ODS for diverse uses 
including aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, solvent cleaning, and 
fire protection. The agreement by governments to phase out production 
of ODS under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer led to inevitable questions about whether suitable alternatives 
could be found in

[[Page 86786]]

all cases, and in the larger sense, about how to limit negative impacts 
on society from use of alternatives.
    It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was 
promulgated. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes 
available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. 
Thus, while the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of 
overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often 
there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative 
assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that EPA 
listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they 
too would be phased out and, at best, could offer an interim solution. 
Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products 
Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under 
the SNAP program could not convey permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has 
issued 20 rules and 31 notices that generally expand the menu of 
options for the various SNAP sectors and end-uses. Thus, comparisons 
today apply to a broader range of alternatives--both chemical and non-
chemical--than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry 
experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of 
the program.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over 
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global 
environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of 
substitutes in this action includes comparative assessments that 
consider our evolving understanding of a variety of factors. For 
example, GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our 
evaluation framework, but as is the case with all of our review 
criteria, the amount of information has expanded and the quality has 
improved.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP 
program considers new information, including new substitutes, and 
improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. 
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing 
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to 
unacceptable. On January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend 
known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and 
AC end-uses for which EPA had previously listed this blend as an 
acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 3, 1997). EPA based this 
decision on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals 
in the blend.
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 
2007, when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in 
the foam sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). These HCFCs, which are 
ozone-depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were 
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP 
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other 
alternatives that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA's listing 
decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at 
a time when the number of substitutes was far more limited. In light of 
the expanded availability of other alternatives with lower overall risk 
to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and 
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phase down step, EPA changed 
the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to 
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs 
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay 
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human 
health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date 
that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their 
manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other 
substitutes.
    GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall 
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. The President's 
June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) \11\ states, ``To reduce emissions 
of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international 
diplomacy as well as domestic actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states 
that EPA will ``use its authority through the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in 
low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly 
chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical 
alternatives.'' On July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), EPA issued a final 
regulation that was our first effort to take a broader look at the SNAP 
lists, where we focused on those listed substitutes that have a high 
GWP relative to other alternatives in specific end-uses, while 
otherwise posing comparable levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan. 
This document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2015 rule, various HFCs and HFC-containing blends that 
were previously listed as acceptable under the SNAP program were listed 
as unacceptable in various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and 
refrigeration and AC sectors where there are other alternatives that 
pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment for 
specific uses. The July 2015 rule also changed the status from 
acceptable to unacceptable for certain HCFCs being phased out of 
production under the Montreal Protocol and CAA section 605(a). Per the 
guiding principles of the SNAP program, the July 2015 rule did not 
specify that any HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and 
end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection 
between the specific substitute and the particular end-use and the 
availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses when making 
its determinations.

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

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or 
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for 
administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of 
substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rule published March 18, 1994 
(59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. A complete 
chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at 
https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

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

    GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall 
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two 
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential 
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change 
have become better understood.
    On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued an 
endangerment finding determining that, for purposes of CAA section 
202(a), elevated atmospheric concentrations of the combination of six 
key well-mixed GHGs in the atmosphere--CO2, methane 
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and 
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger

[[Page 86787]]

the public health and the public welfare of current and future 
generations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and 
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is 
accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\13\ Although they 
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG 
emissions, their warming impact per kilogram is very strong. While GHGs 
such as CO2 and CH4 are unintentional byproducts 
from energy production, industrial and agricultural activities, and 
mobile sources, HFCs are intentionally produced chemicals.\14\ The most 
commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430, which means 
it traps 1,430 times as much heat per kilogram as CO2 does 
over 100 years. Because of their role in replacing ODS, both in the 
United States and globally, and because of the increasing use of 
refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are projected to increase 
substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades 
if their production is left uncontrolled. In the United States, 
emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other 
GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15 percent annually.\15\ At 
that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 
2030.\16\ HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The 
atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a has increased by about ten 
percent per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a 
and HFC-125, which are components of commonly used refrigerant blends, 
have risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007-2011, 
respectively.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone 
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to 
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New 
York. This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
    \14\ HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct 
during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals.
    \15\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and 
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This 
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \16\ Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: 
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
    \17\ Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, 
Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is 
accessible at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without action, annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to 
rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 gigatons of CO2 equivalent 
(GtCO2eq) in 2050,\18\ which is comparable to the drop in 
annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 
and 2010.\19\ By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is 
projected to increase radiative forcing in the range of 0.22 to 0.25 W 
m-2. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-
quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the 
buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on 
Emissions Scenarios (SRES).\20\ To appreciate the significance of the 
effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs 
would be six to nine percent of the CO2 emissions in 2050 
based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions scenario and 
equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO2 emissions based on the 
IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22 
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific 
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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.
    \19\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and 
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This 
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \20\ Ibid.
    \21\ Velders, Guus JM, et al. ``Future atmospheric abundances 
and climate forcings from scenarios of global and regional 
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions.'' Atmospheric Environment 123 
(2015): 200-209.
    \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. This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PFCs are potent GHGs and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs 
are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated 
with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors, then 
captured for intentional use or manufactured for use in various 
industrial applications. PFCs have had limited use in the eight sectors 
regulated under SNAP. While status changes for certain PFCs in fire 
suppression total flooding uses were proposed, no final action on PFCs 
in this end-use is being taken in this action.

IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and 
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?

A. Climate Action Plan

    This action is consistent with a provision in the President's CAP 
announced June 2013:

    Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its 
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to 
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by 
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while 
prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.

    The CAP further states, ``To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United 
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well 
as domestic actions.'' This action is consistent with that call for 
leadership through domestic actions. Regarding international 
leadership, for the past seven years, the United States, Canada, and 
Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase 
down the production and consumption of HFCs. Adopting the North 
American proposal would reduce cumulative HFC emissions by more than 90 
GtCO2eq through 2050.
    Throughout our discussions with the regulated community, we have 
sought to convey our understanding of the role that certainty plays in 
enabling the robust development and uptake of alternatives. As noted 
above, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its 
substance and end-use specific consideration, its multi-criteria basis 
for action, and its petition process, counters measures some have 
advocated could provide more certainty, such as setting specific 
numerical criteria for environmental evaluations (e.g., all compounds 
with GWP greater than 150). That said, this action provides additional 
certainty in the specific cases addressed. In addition, we remain 
committed to continuing to actively seek stakeholder views and to share 
our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions, 
as part of our commitment to provide greater certainty to producers and 
consumers in SNAP-regulated industrial sectors.

B. Summary of Petitions

    EPA received two petitions on October 6, 2015, requesting the 
Agency to modify certain acceptability listings of high-GWP substances 
in various end-uses. The first was submitted by the Natural Resource 
Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable 
Development (IGSD) and the second by the Environmental

[[Page 86788]]

Investigation Agency (EIA).23 24 The NRDC/IGSD petition 
requests that EPA change the listing status of certain high-GWP 
chemicals they believe are used most frequently in the United States in 
various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire 
suppression and explosion protection sectors. The EIA petition requests 
that EPA list additional high-GWP HFCs as unacceptable or acceptable, 
subject to use restrictions, in a number of end-uses in the 
refrigeration and AC, and fire suppression and explosion protection 
sectors. In support of their petitions, the petitioners identified 
other alternatives they claim are available for use in the specified 
end-uses and present lower risks to human health and environment. These 
petitions are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) and are available in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA 
has not found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses 
sufficient information to finalize action on some of the end-uses 
covered by the petitions. This action is responsive to certain aspects 
of the petitions that relate to the refrigeration and AC, and foam 
blowing sectors; EPA is changing the listing from acceptable to 
unacceptable for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs 
under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives 
Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015.
    \24\ EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status 
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain 
high-GWP chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFC-134a in new centrifugal chillers, new positive 
displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and 
rigid PU spray foam;
     R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R-507A in new centrifugal 
chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household 
refrigerators and freezers, and new cold storage warehouses;
     R-407A in new cold storage warehouses;
     R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, and R-434A in new 
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-227ea in new cold storage warehouses, new centrifugal 
chillers, and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-227ea in rigid PU spray 
foam;
     HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new centrifugal chillers and 
new positive displacement chillers; and
     a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs in certain 
new refrigeration and AC equipment.
    Parts of two other SNAP petitions previously submitted by the same 
three organizations are also relevant to this rulemaking. In a petition 
EIA submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated that ``in light of 
the comparative nature of the SNAP program's evaluation of substitutes 
and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon 
to be available,'' EPA should ``remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends 
from the list of acceptable substitutes for any ozone-depleting 
substance in any non-essential uses under EPA's SNAP program.'' 
Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April 27, 2012, 
requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable 
substitutes in household refrigerators and freezers, and stand-alone 
retail food refrigerators and freezers, among other end-uses. On August 
7, 2013, EPA found both petitions to be incomplete. While EPA has not 
found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses sufficient 
information to finalize action on some of the end-uses covered by the 
petitions. Similar to the October 2015 petitions, this action is 
responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the 
refrigeration and AC and foam blowing sectors.

V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section 608?

A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or 
disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 
608?

    To briefly summarize the primary requirements of CAA section 608, 
that section requires, among other things, that EPA establish 
regulations governing the use and disposal of ODS used as refrigerants, 
such as certain CFCs and HCFCs, during the service, repair, or disposal 
of appliances and industrial process refrigeration (IPR). Section 
608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for any person, in the course of 
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance (or 
IPR), to knowingly vent, or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of 
any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in that 
appliance (or IPR) in a manner which permits the ODS to enter the 
environment.
    Section 608(c)(1) exempts de minimis releases associated with good 
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such a 
substance from this prohibition. EPA, as set forth in its regulations, 
interprets releases to meet the criteria for exempted de minimis 
releases if they occur when the recycling and recovery requirements of 
specified regulations issued under sections 608 and 609 are followed 
(40 CFR 82.154(a)(2)).
    Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to 
any substitutes for class I or class II substances used as 
refrigerants. This prohibition applies to all refrigerant substitutes 
unless the Administrator determines that the venting, releasing, or 
disposing of the substitute does not pose a threat to the environment. 
Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations 
to interpret and enforce this prohibition on venting, releasing, or 
disposing of class I or class II substances and their refrigerant 
substitutes, which this action refers to as the ``venting 
prohibition.'' EPA's authority under section 608(c) includes authority 
to exempt certain refrigerant substitutes for class I or class II 
substances from the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) when 
the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal 
does not pose a threat to the environment. EPA's authority to 
promulgate some of the regulatory revisions in this action is thus 
based in part on CAA section 608.

B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, releasing, or 
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?

    Regulations issued under CAA section 608, published on May 14, 1993 
(58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting 
refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance of 
refrigeration and AC appliances. These regulations are codified at 40 
CFR part 82, subpart F. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also issued 
regulations implementing the section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly 
venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances. 
These regulations were designed to substantially reduce the use and 
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    EPA issued rules on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946) and April 13, 2005 
(70 FR 19273) clarifying how the venting prohibition in section 608(c) 
applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and 
PFCs) during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of 
appliances. In part, they provide that no person maintaining, 
servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or 
otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute 
from such appliances, with the exception of the specified substitutes 
in the specified end-uses, as provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a).
    As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant 
substitutes, EPA had not, at the time of that rulemaking, issued 
regulations

[[Page 86789]]

requiring certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment 
intended for use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 
2005). However, as EPA has noted, the lack of a current regulatory 
provision should not be considered as an exemption from the venting 
prohibition for substitutes that are not expressly exempted in Sec.  
82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478).
    The Administrator signed final regulations to require certification 
of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with 
refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition. For 
information on the final 608 rule, see the docket for the rulemaking 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA exempted from the venting 
prohibition three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-
441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination 
refrigerators and freezers; and propane in retail food refrigerators 
and freezers (stand-alone units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 (80 
FR 19453), EPA exempted from the venting prohibition four HC 
refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A in retail 
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); propane in 
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and 
freezers; ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and 
equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, propane, and 
isobutane in vending machines; and propane and R-441A in self-contained 
room air conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat 
pumps. Those regulatory exemptions do not apply to blends of HCs with 
other refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or 
PFC.
    In those 2014 and 2015 actions, EPA determined that for the 
purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of 
such HC refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose 
a threat to the environment, considering both the inherent 
characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in 
the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other 
authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant 
substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of 
those HC refrigerant substitutes.

VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?

    EPA is listing certain newly submitted alternatives as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, and other newly submitted alternatives as 
unacceptable. EPA is also modifying current listings from acceptable to 
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable for 
certain alternatives in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC 
and foam blowing sectors. In each instance where EPA is listing a newly 
submitted substitute as unacceptable or is changing the status of a 
substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has determined that 
there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human 
health and the environment. In a few instances, EPA established 
narrowed use limits for certain substitutes for specific military or 
space-and aeronautics-related applications in the refrigeration and AC, 
and foam blowing sectors, on the basis that other acceptable 
alternatives would not be available for those specific applications 
within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to 
become available over time. This action also applies unacceptability 
determinations for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and 
products containing closed cell foam. Additionally, EPA is exempting 
propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines, 
in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2). 
This action also clarifies the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-
X[supreg]), which was previously listed as both acceptable and 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, by removing the listing as 
acceptable subject to use conditions. The emissions that will be 
avoided from the changes of status in this action are estimated to be 
up to approximately 6.6 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide 
Equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2025 and up to approximately 11.3 
MMTCO2eq in 2030.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status 
Change Rule. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of Listing Status

    In determining whether to modify the previous listing decisions for 
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose 
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among 
other things: Comments to the proposed rule of April 18, 2016, 
scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and 
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that supports the Montreal Protocol, 
journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and 
supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports 
presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from 
trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on 
which we have relied are in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). Key references are highlighted in section VIII of this 
action.

Change of Status Dates

    The change of status dates are based upon EPA's understanding of 
the availability of alternatives, considering factors such as 
commercial availability and supply of alternatives, time required to 
work through technical challenges with using alternatives, and time 
required to meet other federal regulatory requirements with redesigned 
equipment or formulations. As discussed in previous actions, as part of 
our consideration of the availability of alternatives, we consider 
``all available information, including information provided during the 
public comment period, and information claimed as confidential and 
provided during meetings, regarding technical challenges that may 
affect the time at which the alternatives can be used safely and used 
consistent with other requirements such as testing and code compliance 
obligations'' (80 FR 42873; July 20, 2015).

Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    Under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under 
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition 
when a substitute is found unacceptable. EPA requires information on 
cost and availability of substitutes as part of SNAP submissions to 
judge how widely a substitute might be used and, therefore, what its 
potential environmental and health effects might be. The SNAP criteria 
do not identify other cost considerations and thus we have not 
historically used cost information independent of environmental and 
health effects to determine the acceptability of substitutes under 
review--that is, we have never determined a substitute under review to 
be unacceptable or acceptable on the basis of its cost. When 
considering a change of status for substitutes already listed as 
acceptable, the SNAP program has not considered the costs of transition 
away from HFCs, HFC blends, PFCs, and other alternatives affected by 
the changes of status as part of determining the status

[[Page 86790]]

of the substitute or the availability of other alternatives for the 
same uses.
    We are not addressing in this rulemaking whether to revise the 
regulatory criteria to include an expanded role for the consideration 
of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applied the existing 
regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status 
of the substitutes addressed in this action.
    Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the costs of the changes of status 
in this action to provide information to the public and to meet various 
statutory and executive order requirements. We have estimated costs for 
applicable NAICS codes in a document titled, ``Cost Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used 
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' 
\26\ Using a seven percent discount rate, total annualized compliance 
costs across the roughly 100 affected businesses are estimated to range 
from $59.2 million-$71.3 million. Using a three percent discount rate, 
total annualized compliance costs are estimated to range from $58.8 
million-$70.6 million.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and 
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
    \27\ In terms of the distribution of the estimated total 
annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning is 
about 97-98 percent, foams is about two to three percent and fire 
suppression is about zero percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses 
in a document titled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used 
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' 
\28\ The screening analysis finds that the rulemaking can be presumed 
to have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities (SISNOSE). Roughly 89 small businesses could be subject to the 
rulemaking. Total annualized compliance costs across affected small 
businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8-$14.4 million at a 
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5-$14.0 million at a three percent 
discount rate.\29\ Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect this 
action to have major economic impacts (greater than $100 million per 
year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives 
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 
Suppression. September, 2016.
    \29\ Of those 89 small businesses, roughly 76 percent would be 
expected to incur compliance costs that are estimated to be less 
than one percent of annual sales. Roughly 24 percent could incur 
costs in excess of one percent of annual sales with approximately 14 
percent possibly incurring costs in excess of three percent of 
annual sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Refrigeration and Stationary AC

1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Self-Contained Commercial Ice 
Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration 
Equipment
a. Background
    This section, and other ``background'' sections that follow in the 
rule, provide information on the end-uses relevant to this decision, 
available alternatives, and other applicable regulations relevant to 
these end-uses.
    Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments, such 
as hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores to produce ice. Many 
commercial ice machines are self-contained units, while some have the 
condenser separated from the portion of the machine making the ice and 
have refrigerant lines running between the two. This action applies 
only to self-contained commercial ice machines.
    Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for 
drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water.
    Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to 
maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of 
food--generally, -80 [deg]C (-170[emsp14][deg]F) or lower. In some 
cases, very low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a 
refrigeration system with two refrigerant loops containing different 
refrigerants or with a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration loop coupled 
with an alternative refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling cycle).
    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established energy 
conservation standards for automatic commercial ice machines which 
apply to the self-contained commercial ice machines in this 
listing.\30\ DOE does not have an energy conservation standard that 
would apply to water coolers or to very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment. For further information on the relationship between this 
action and other federal rules, see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed 
rule (81 FR 22830; April 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards_test_procedures.html. ``Automatic 
commercial ice machines'' are defined as ``a factory-made assembly 
(not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that--(1) consists of a 
condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated 
unit, with means for making and harvesting ice; and (2) may include 
means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing 
ice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is listing propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial 
ice machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature 
refrigeration equipment. The use conditions include conditions 
requiring conformity with industry standards, limits on charge size, 
and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment. The use 
conditions are detailed in section VI.A.1.b.ii.
i. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses 
with respect to SNAP criteria?
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable in the 
commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature 
refrigeration end-uses. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 
2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health 
properties of propane and the various substitutes in these end-uses. 
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for propane and a technical 
support document \31\ that provides the Federal Register citations 
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 
flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses are 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    Propane has an ODP of zero.\32\ The most commonly used substitutes 
in the commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature 
refrigeration end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., R-404A and R-
134a). Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such as R-
401A, R-403B, R-414A and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-
142b,\33\ have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an 
ODP lower

[[Page 86791]]

than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these end-
uses.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine, 
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
    \33\ Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to 
service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b 
and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to 
manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to 
charge new appliances assembled onsite.
    \34\ Propane's ODP is also lower than the ODP of the ozone-
depleting substances historically used in these end-uses: CFC-12 
(ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1/halon 1301 (ODP = 10) and 
R-502 (ODP = 0.334).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate 
forcing of various GHGs relative to a value of one for CO2. 
Propane has a low GWP of three.\35\ For comparison, some other commonly 
used acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses are R-134a and R-404A, 
with GWPs of about 1,430 and 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 2, 
the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants in commercial ice machines ranges 
from zero for ammonia vapor compression, ammonia absorption, and the 
not-in-kind (NIK) Stirling cycle technology to approximately 3,990 for 
R-507A. For water coolers, acceptable substitutes have GWPs ranging 
from 31 for THR-02 to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.\36\ For very low 
temperature refrigeration, the GWPs for acceptable substitutes range 
from one for CO2 to 14,800 for HFC-23. Propane's GWP is 
comparable to or significantly lower than those of other alternatives 
in these end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are 
100-year integrated time horizon values taken from IPCC, 2007. 
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
    \36\ The GWPs of the ODS historically used in these end-uses 
are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/halon 
1301; (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).

   Table 2--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propane Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Commercial Ice Machines,
                     Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Refrigerants                GWP                  ODP                      VOC            Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane......................               3  0........................  Yes..................  Acceptable,
                                                                                                  subject to use
                                                                                                  conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Commercial Ice Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-         0-3,990  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
 407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 421A, R-421B, R-424A, R-
 426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-
 449A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON         30-3,610  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 B, R-125/R-290 /R-134a/ R-
 600a (55.0/1.0/ 42.5/1.5),
 417A, R-422A, R-422B, R-
 422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A,
 R-438A, RS-24 (2002
 formulation), RS-44 (2003
 formulation), THR-02, THR-03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Water Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-          0-3,990  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-
 437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR-12B, IKON B, R-          30-3,090  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 125/R-290 /R-134a /R-600a
 (55.0/1.0 /42.5/1.5), R-
 422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
 438A, RS-24 (2002
 formulation), SP34E, THR-02.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-         1-14,800  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-
 170 (ethane), R-404A, R-
 407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 507A, R-508A, R-508B.
ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/    2,530-8,500  0........................  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
 R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC,
 PFC-662HC, PFC-552HC, and
 FLC-15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOCs.

    In assessing the overall climate impacts associated with use of 
these refrigerants, we focus on the ``direct'' emissions, which are 
emissions from releases of the refrigerants over the full lifecycle of 
refrigerant-containing products.\37\ In contrast, ``indirect'' 
emissions are associated with electricity consumption. We do not have a 
practice in the SNAP program of evaluating indirect impacts in the 
overall risk analysis because such considerations are linked not only 
to the specific alternative used but also to the design of specific 
pieces of equipment and equipment design changes from year-to-year. 
Thus, indirect impacts do not provide a reasonable metric for the SNAP 
evaluation, which occurs at a fixed point in time and considers other 
alternatives reviewed previously. Instead, our overall assessment of 
climate impacts considers issues such as technical needs for energy 
efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE conservation standards) as part of our 
consideration of whether alternatives are ``available.'' We recognize 
that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part 
affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic 
and thermophysical properties of that refrigerant, as well as other 
factors. For example, appliances that are optimized for a specific 
refrigerant will operate more efficiently. While theoretical efficiency 
of any given Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant used, 
the refrigerant, the design of the

[[Page 86792]]

equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy efficiency 
achieved in operation. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency 
will be achieved in future products using propane, or any other 
specific acceptable refrigerant, both actual equipment and testing 
results suggest that equipment optimized for propane may improve energy 
efficiency, and is unlikely to reduce it.38 39 40 Further, 
testing data, peer-reviewed journal articles and other information 
provided by the submitters for propane in these end-uses indicate that 
equipment using propane is likely to require a smaller refrigerant 
charge, have a higher coefficient of performance, and use less energy 
than equipment currently being manufactured that uses other 
refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable under SNAP in 
these end-uses. Also see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed rule (81 FR 
22830) concerning the role of the DOE energy conservation standards in 
ensuring that overall energy efficiency of equipment will be maintained 
or improved over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This 
document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
    \38\ Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-
290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
    \39\ Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013. 
EPA SNAP Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice 
Machines, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
    \40\ Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water 
Coolers. October, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of 
propane and other HC refrigerants on local air quality. Propane meets 
the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and 
is not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing 
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As described below, EPA 
estimates that potential emissions of HCs, including propane, when used 
as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC 
sector, have little impact on local air quality, with the exception of 
unsaturated HCs such as propylene.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analyzed various scenarios to consider the potential impacts on 
local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely.\42\ The analysis 
considered both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. The worst-case 
scenario assumed that the most reactive HC listed as acceptable 
(isobutane) was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even though 
isobutane has not been listed acceptable for use in all refrigeration 
and AC uses, and that all refrigerant used was emitted to the 
atmosphere. In that extreme scenario, the model predicted that the 
maximum increase in any single 8-hour average ground-level ozone 
concentration would be 0.72 parts per billion (ppb) in Los Angeles, 
which is the area with the highest level of ground-level ozone 
pollution in the United States. Based on this maximum projected 
increase, EPA determined that the incremental VOC emissions from 
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would 
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it.\43\ Given the potential sources 
of uncertainty in the modeling, the conservativeness of the 
assumptions, and the finding that the incremental VOC emissions from 
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would 
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it,\44\ we believe that the use of 
isobutane consistent with the use conditions required in EPA's 
regulations will not result in significantly greater risk to the 
environment than other alternatives. Because propane is less reactive 
at forming ground-level ozone than isobutane, we reach the same 
conclusion for propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Ibid.
    \43\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to 
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone 
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    \44\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to 
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone 
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a less conservative analysis of potential impacts on ambient 
ozone levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses that would be more likely 
to use HC refrigerants between now and 2030, including end-uses where 
HC refrigerants previously have been listed as acceptable and the three 
end-uses addressed in this rule. For example, we assumed use of propane 
in water coolers and commercial ice machines and in other end-uses 
where EPA has already listed propane as acceptable, including room air 
conditioners and household and retail food refrigeration equipment. We 
also assumed the use of other HCs in end-uses where they are already 
listed as acceptable such as isobutane in household and retail food 
refrigeration equipment and R-441A in room air conditioners and 
household and retail food refrigeration equipment. For further 
information on the specific assumptions, see the docket for this 
rulemaking.\45\ Based on this still conservative but more probable 
assessment of refrigerant use, we found that there would be a worst-
case impact of a 0.15 ppb increase in ozone for a single 8-hour average 
concentration in the Los Angeles area, which is the area with the 
highest level of ground-level ozone in the United States.\46\ In the 
other cities examined in the analysis, Houston and Atlanta, impacts 
were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb for a single 8-hour 
average concentration, respectively).\47\ For areas in the analysis 
that were not violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the impacts did not cause 
an exceedance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We updated this analysis for the 
final rule, extending the analysis to 2040 and considering just those 
uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants already listed as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions, and the use of propane in the end-uses in this rule. 
This updated analysis found worst-case impacts for a single 8-hour 
average concentration in the Los Angeles area of 0.05 ppb and worst-
case impacts of less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
    \46\ This less conservative analysis included some use of R-443A 
in room AC units because that substitute was under evaluation for 
that end-use. Elsewhere in this rule, we find R-443A and propylene 
unacceptable in residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps, 
including room AC units. The propylene in R-443A, representing 12 
percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for about 75 percent 
of the 0.15 ppb increase in ozone in this scenario, while all uses 
of propane, representing 83 percent of refrigerant emitted, was 
responsible for about 21 percent of the increase of ozone in this 
scenario. Thus, only 0.03 ppb of the 0.15 ppb observed in Los 
Angeles would be due to propane and other acceptable HCs.
    \47\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the relatively minimal air quality impacts of propane if 
it is released to the atmosphere from commercial ice machines, water 
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment even in a 
worst-case scenario, we conclude that propane does not have a 
significantly greater overall impact on human health and the 
environment based on its effects on local air quality than other 
refrigerants listed as acceptable in commercial ice machines, water 
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
    Ecosystem effects from propane, primarily effects on aquatic life, 
are expected to be small as are the effects of other acceptable 
substitutes. Propane is highly volatile and typically evaporates or 
partitions to air, rather than contaminating surface waters, and thus 
propane's effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. Propane 
will pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of 
other alternatives for these uses.

[[Page 86793]]

(b) Flammability
    Propane is classified as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34-
2013 and subsequent addenda, indicating that it has low toxicity and 
high flammability. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 assigns a safety group 
classification for each refrigerant which consists of two alphanumeric 
characters (e.g., A2 or B1). The capital letter indicates the toxicity 
and the numeral denotes the flammability. ASHRAE classifies Class A 
refrigerants as refrigerants for which toxicity has not been identified 
at concentrations less than or equal to 400 parts per million (ppm) by 
volume, based on data used to determine TLV-time weighted average (TWA) 
or consistent indices. Class B signifies refrigerants for which there 
is evidence of toxicity at concentrations below 400 ppm by volume, 
based on data used to determine TLV-TWA or consistent indices. The 
refrigerants are also assigned a flammability classification of 1, 2, 
or 3. Tests are conducted in accordance with ASTM E681 using a spark 
ignition source at 60 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa.\48\ Figure 1 in ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 15-2013 uses the same safety group but limits its 
concentration to 3,400 ppm.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation 
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants.
    \49\ ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety 
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flammability classification ``1'' is given to refrigerants 
that, when tested, show no flame propagation. The flammability 
classification ``2'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested, 
exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000 
kJ/kg (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), and have a lower 
flammability limit (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\. Refrigerants within 
flammability classification 2 may optionally be designated in the LFL 
subclass ``2L'' if they have a maximum burning velocity of 10 cm/s or 
lower when tested at 23.0 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability 
classification ``3'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested, 
exhibit flame propagation and that either have a heat of combustion of 
19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or 
lower. Thus, refrigerants with flammability classification ``3'' are 
highly flammable while those with flammability classification ``2'' are 
less flammable and those with flammability classification ``2L'' are 
mildly flammable. For both toxicity and flammability classifications, 
refrigerant blends are designated based on the worst-case of 
fractionation determined for the blend.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE16.000

    Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because 
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature 
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are 
not flammable. Without appropriate use conditions, the flammability 
risk posed by propane would be higher than non-flammable refrigerants 
because individuals may not be aware that their actions could 
potentially cause a fire.
    Because of its flammability, propane could pose a significant 
safety concern for workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in 
this proposal if it is not handled correctly. In the presence of an 
ignition source (e.g., static electricity spark resulting from closing 
a door, use of a torch during service, or a short circuit in wiring 
that controls the motor of a compressor), an explosion or a fire could 
occur when the concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. Propane's 
LFL is 21,000 ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it 
is important to minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and 
to reduce the likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed 
the LFL. Under the final listing decision in this action, propane is 
acceptable for use only in new equipment (self-contained commercial ice 
machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment) specifically designed for this refrigerant.
    To determine whether flammability would be a concern for service 
personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed multiple scenarios, beginning 
with a plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of 
propane. Based upon the results of those analyses, we expect there 
would not be an unacceptable risk of fire or explosion provided that 
the charge size is limited to 150 g for self-contained ice machines or 
very low temperature refrigeration equipment or to 60 g for water 
coolers. EPA also reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the 
probability of events that might create a fire and approaches to avoid 
sparking from the refrigeration equipment. Further information on these 
analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in the docket for 
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663) and in section VI.A.1.b.ii of 
the proposed rule (81 FR 22827).
    Service personnel or consumers may not be familiar with 
refrigeration or AC

[[Page 86794]]

equipment containing a flammable refrigerant. Therefore, use conditions 
are necessary to ensure people handling such equipment are aware that 
equipment contains a flammable refrigerant and to ensure safe handling. 
When used in accordance with the use conditions required by this rule, 
and with equipment specifically designed for its use, propane's 
flammability hazard is adequately mitigated and its use is not 
significantly greater than that of other acceptable substitutes in 
these end-uses.
(c) Toxicity
    In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of propane on human health 
in these end-uses, EPA considered both occupational and consumer risks. 
In general when evaluating non-cancer toxicity risks of a substitute, 
we use measured exposure concentrations if available, or modeled 
exposure concentrations using conservative assumptions appropriate to 
an end-use, and compare these exposure levels to recommended or 
required exposure limits for a compound that are intended to protect 
against adverse health effects. Where measured or modeled exposure 
levels are below relevant exposure limits for a chemical, we consider 
toxicity risks to be acceptable. Other acceptable substitutes listed 
for these end-uses have been evaluated for toxicity in this manner, 
including ethane for very low temperature refrigeration, ammonia for 
commercial ice machines, and a number of HFC blends for all three end-
uses.
    To evaluate the toxicity of propane, EPA estimated the maximum TWA 
exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a 30-minute TWA 
exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would be more typical of 
occupational exposure for a technician servicing the equipment or a 
worker disposing of appliances. The modeling results indicate that both 
the short-term (30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure 
concentrations would be below the relevant workplace exposure limits.
    A similar analysis of asphyxiation risks considered whether a 
worst-case release of refrigerant in the same room sizes would result 
in oxygen concentrations of 12 percent or less. This analysis found 
that impacts on oxygen concentrations were minimal, with oxygen 
concentrations remaining at approximately 21 percent.
    For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as 
water coolers and commercial ice machines, EPA performed a consumer 
exposure analysis. In this analysis, we examined potential catastrophic 
release of the entire charge of the substitute in one minute under a 
worst-case scenario. We did not examine exposure to consumers in very 
low temperature refrigeration, as equipment for this end-use would 
typically be used in the workplace, such as in laboratories, and not in 
a home or public space. The analysis was undertaken to determine the 
short term (30-minute TWA) exposure levels for the substitute, which 
were then compared to the toxicity limit to assess the risk to 
consumers. The analysis found, even under the highly conservative 
assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the estimated 30-
minute consumer exposures to propane are lower than the relevant 
toxicity limits.
    Based upon our analysis, workplace and consumer exposure to propane 
when used in these end-uses according to the use conditions is not 
expected to exceed relevant exposure limits. Thus, propane does not 
pose significantly greater toxicity risks than other acceptable 
refrigerants in these end-uses. For further information, including 
EPA's risk screens and risk assessments as well as information from the 
submitters of propane as a substitute refrigerant, see docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663 and section VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR 
22827-8).
ii. What are the final use conditions?
    To ensure that using propane in commercial ice machines, water 
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment will not 
cause greater risk to human health or the environment than other 
alternatives, we have identified and are establishing use conditions to 
address flammability and toxicity concerns.
    Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because 
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature 
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are 
not flammable. Propane could pose a significant safety concern for 
workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in this action if it is 
not handled correctly. In the presence of an ignition source (e.g., 
static electricity spark resulting from closing a door, use of a torch 
during service, or a short circuit in wiring that controls the motor of 
a compressor), an explosion or a fire could occur when the 
concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. Propane's LFL is 21,000 
ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it is important to 
minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and to reduce the 
likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed the LFL. We 
are establishing use conditions that focus on ensuring that these risks 
are addressed for both the end user and service personnel. OSHA and 
building code requirements generally address flammability risks in the 
workplace, and we presume that the original equipment manufacturers 
(OEMs), who would be storing large quantities of the refrigerant, are 
familiar with and will use proper safety precautions to minimize the 
risk of explosion, consistent with those requirements. Therefore, we 
are not establishing use conditions to address workplace risk, which 
would be redundant of existing requirements. We are including 
recommendations in the Further Information section of the SNAP listings 
that these facilities be equipped with proper ventilation systems and 
be properly designed to reduce possible ignition sources. See section 
VI.A.1.b.ii in this action and section VI.A.1.b.ii of the proposed rule 
(81 FR 22827) for additional information on the flammability risks 
posed by propane. Further information on EPA's risk assessments are 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
    We are finalizing the proposed use conditions, summarized in 
section VI.A.1.b.ii.(a)-(e), with one change--we are lowering the 
charge size for water coolers. In response to public comment and for 
consistency with the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 399 standard, we 
are finalizing a charge size of 60 g for water coolers instead of 150 
g. The use conditions are consistent with industry standards, limits on 
charge size, and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment.
(a) For Use in New Equipment Only; Not for Use as a Retrofit 
Alternative
    In the specified end-uses in this action, propane is limited to use 
only in new equipment \50\ that has been designed and manufactured 
specifically for use with propane. Propane was not submitted under the 
SNAP program to be used in retrofitted equipment, and no information 
was provided on how to mitigate hazards of flammable refrigerants when 
used in equipment that was not designed for flammable refrigerants. Use 
of propane in equipment not designed for its use, including existing 
equipment designed for another refrigerant, is a violation of CAA 
section 612(c) and the

[[Page 86795]]

corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ This is intended to mean a completely new refrigeration 
circuit containing a new evaporator, condenser and refrigerant 
tubing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Standards
    EPA is requiring that propane be used only in equipment that meets 
all requirements in the relevant supplements for flammable refrigerants 
in certain applicable UL standards for refrigeration and AC equipment. 
Specifically, Supplement SA to the 8th edition of UL 563 standard, 
dated July 31, 2009, applies to self-contained commercial ice machines 
using flammable refrigerants.\51\ Supplement SB to the 7th edition of 
UL 399, dated August 22, 2008, applies to water coolers using flammable 
refrigerants.\52\ Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is 
sufficiently similar to stand-alone commercial refrigerators that an 
appropriate standard is Supplement SB to the 10th edition of UL 471, 
dated November 24, 2010.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ UL, 2009. Standard 563--Standard for Ice Makers. A summary 
of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563.
    \52\ UL, 2008. Standard 399--Standard for Drinking-Water 
Coolers. A summary of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7.
    \53\ UL, 2010. Standard 471--Standard for Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers. A summary of this document is accessible 
at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UL has tested equipment for flammability risk in household and 
retail food refrigeration and in commercial freezers for very low 
temperature refrigeration. Further, UL has developed acceptable safety 
standards including requirements for construction, markings, and 
performance tests concerning refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching 
components, surface temperature of parts, and component strength after 
being scratched. These standards were developed in an open and 
consensus-based approach, with the assistance of experts in the AC and 
refrigeration industry as well as experts involved in assessing the 
safety of products. While similar standards exist from other bodies 
such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), we are 
relying on UL standards as those are the standards applicable to and 
recognized by the U.S. market. This approach is the same as that 
adopted in our previous rules on flammable refrigerants (76 FR 78832, 
December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA acknowledges that 
international standards exist and believes that UL will likely 
harmonize with these standards in the future. If UL plans to update 
ANSI/UL399 to harmonize with IEC-60335-2-89, then referencing an IEC 
standard in future actions may allow for a smoother transition. 
Specifically, the international standard must adequately provide 
guidelines for use conditions for all equipment types under SNAP 
review, including refrigerant charge size limits, minimum room sizes 
for installation, ventilation requirements, and required permanent 
markings on equipment, system parts, and servicing equipment.
(c) Charge Size
    EPA is requiring a charge size not to exceed 150 g in each 
refrigerant circuit for self-contained commercial ice machines and very 
low temperature refrigeration equipment and not to exceed 60 g in each 
refrigerant circuit for water coolers.\54\ These are the charge sizes 
that reflect the UL 563, UL 399, and UL 471 standards. UL Standards 563 
(ice machines) and 471 (commercial stand-alone refrigeration equipment) 
limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 g (5.29 oz). UL 399 
(water coolers) limits the amount of refrigerant leaked to 60 g (2.12 
oz) discussed in paragraph (b) of this section, the UL standards are 
applicable to and recognized by the U.S. market and are developed by a 
consensus of experts. We note that the charge size limit for propane of 
150 g in the UL standards for ice machines and commercial stand-alone 
commercial refrigeration equipment is in line with the IEC 60335-2-89 
standard addressing commercial ice-machines and other commercial 
refrigeration equipment, which also has a charge size limit of 150 g. 
These limits will reduce the risk to workers and consumers since under 
scenarios we analyzed, a leak of refrigerant of these sizes did not 
result in concentrations of the refrigerant that met or exceeded the 
LFL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ To place this in context, a 150 g charge is about five 
times the charge in a disposable lighter (30 g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Color-Coded Hoses and Piping
    EPA is requiring that equipment designed for use with propane must 
have distinguishing color-coded hoses and piping to indicate use of a 
flammable refrigerant. This will help technicians immediately identify 
the use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby reducing the risk of using 
sparking equipment or otherwise having an ignition source nearby. The 
AC and refrigeration industry currently uses distinguishing colors as 
means to identify different refrigerants. Likewise, distinguishing 
coloring has been used elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially 
dangerous situation, for example in the use of orange insulated wires 
in hybrid electric vehicles. Currently, no industry standard exists for 
color-coded hoses or pipes for propane. EPA is requiring that all such 
refrigerator tubing be colored red Pantone matching system (PMS) #185 
to match the red band displayed on the container of flammable 
refrigerants under the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 
Institute (AHRI) Guideline ``N'' 2014, ``2014 Guideline for Assignment 
of Refrigerant Container Colors.'' \55\ This requirement mirrors the 
existing use condition for flammable refrigerants in residential and 
commercial refrigerator-freezers, vending machines, very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment, non-mechanical heat transfer 
equipment, and room air conditioners (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 
80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA wants to ensure that there is 
adequate notice that a flammable refrigerant is being used within a 
particular piece of equipment or appliance. One way to mark hoses and 
pipes is to add a colored plastic sleeve or cap to the service tube 
rather than painting or dying the hoses or pipes. This sleeve would be 
of the same red color (PMS #185) and could also be boldly marked with 
the flame graphic required by the UL standards to indicate the 
refrigerant was flammable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ AHRI, 2014. Guideline N-2014 for Assignment of Refrigerant 
Container Colors. This document is accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is particularly concerned with ensuring adequate and proper 
notification for servicing and disposal of appliances containing 
flammable refrigerants. The use of color-coded hoses, as well as the 
use of warning labels discussed in the next paragraph, would be 
consistent with other general industry practices. This approach is 
consistent with the approach adopted in our previous rules on flammable 
refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 
2015).
(e) Labeling
    EPA is requiring labeling of self-contained commercial ice 
machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment. EPA is requiring that the warning labels on the equipment 
contain letters at least \1/4\ inch high and that they be permanently 
affixed to the equipment. Warning label language requirements are as 
follows:
    (1) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant 
Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not 
Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.'' This marking must be provided on or near 
any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer.

[[Page 86796]]

    (2) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant 
Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture 
Refrigerant Tubing.'' This marking must be located near the machine 
compartment.
    (3) ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant 
Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service 
This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.'' This marking 
must be located near the machine compartment.
    (4) ``CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In 
Accordance With Federal or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant 
Used.'' This marking must be provided on the exterior of the 
refrigeration equipment.
    (5) CAUTION--Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of 
Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable 
Refrigerant Used.'' This marking must be provided near all exposed 
refrigerant tubing.
    The warning label language is similar to or exactly the same as 
that required in UL standards: For commercial ice machines in UL 563 in 
section SB6.1, for water coolers in UL 399 in section SA6.1, and for 
commercial refrigerators and freezers, including very low temperature 
freezers, in UL 471 in section SB6.1.
    It would be difficult to see warning labels with the minimum 
lettering height requirement of \1/8\ inch in these UL standards. 
Therefore, as in the requirements in our previous HC refrigerants rules 
for residential and commercial refrigerator-freezers, vending machines, 
very low temperature refrigeration equipment, non-mechanical heat 
transfer equipment, and room air conditioners (76 FR 78832, December 
20, 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015), EPA is requiring the minimum 
height for lettering must be \1/4\ inch as opposed to \1/8\ inch. This 
will make it easier for technicians, consumers, retail storeowners, and 
first responders to view the warning labels.
iii. What recommendations does EPA have for the safe use of propane?
    In addition to establishing regulatory use conditions, which are 
binding on users of this substitute, EPA is also making recommendations 
for the use of this substitute. EPA is recommending that only 
technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerant 
dispose of or service refrigeration and AC equipment containing these 
substances. Trained technicians should know how to minimize the risk of 
fire and the procedures for using flammable refrigerants safely. 
Releases of large quantities of flammable refrigerants during servicing 
and manufacturing, especially in enclosed, poorly ventilated spaces or 
in areas where large amounts of refrigerant are stored, could cause an 
explosion if there is an ignition source nearby. For these reasons, 
technicians should be properly trained to handle flammable refrigerant 
when maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of water coolers, 
commercial ice machines, and very low temperature freezers. In 
addition, EPA recommends that if propane is vented, released, or 
disposed of (rather than recovered) for these specified end-uses, the 
release should be in a well-ventilated area, such as outside of a 
building. Ensuring proper ventilation and avoiding ignition sources are 
recommended practices, whether venting or recovering a flammable 
refrigerant.
    The Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and 
Heating (AIRAH) provides useful guidance on safety precautions 
technicians can follow when servicing equipment containing flammable 
refrigerants or when venting refrigerant. One of those practices is to 
connect a hose to the appliance to allow for venting the refrigerant 
outside.\56\ This document is included in the docket for this action 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air 
Conditioning and Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 
2013. This document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are aware that at least two organizations in the United States, 
Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES) and the ESCO Institute, 
have developed technician training programs in collaboration with 
refrigeration equipment manufacturers and users that address safe use 
of flammable refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA has reviewed 
several training programs provided as part of SNAP submissions from 
persons interested in flammable refrigerant substitutes. The Agency 
intends to update the test bank for technician certification under CAA 
section 608, and will consider including additional questions on 
flammable refrigerants. By adding such questions to the test bank, EPA 
would supplement but not replace technician training programs currently 
provided by non-government entities. EPA intends to seek additional 
information and guidance on how best to incorporate this content 
through a separate process outside the scope of this final rule.
iv. When will the listing apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same 
as the effective date of this regulation, to allow for the safe use of 
this substitute at the earliest opportunity.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received comments from organizations with various interests in 
commercial refrigeration regarding the proposed listing of propane as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in newly manufactured self-
contained commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment. Most commenters supported the 
proposed listing decision and effective date of 30 days after 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. Other commenters 
addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed listing of propane, 
the proposed use conditions, training for technicians handling 
flammable refrigerants, and industry codes and standards.
    Commenters included Filtrine Manufacturing Company (Filtrine), a 
manufacturer of drinking fountains, water coolers, and drinking water 
filtration equipment; the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA); 
Chemours, a chemical producer; the National Environmental Development 
Association's Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP), an organization 
representing manufacturers of a variety of refrigeration and AC 
equipment among others; and UL, a safety consulting and certification 
company.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: Filtrine supported the listing of propane in water 
coolers. Filtrine noted that water cooler units using propane perform 
as efficiently or more efficiently than other commonly used HFC 
refrigerants, such as R-134a.
    Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting the decision to 
list propane as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in commercial 
ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment. EPA agrees that HCs are already being safely and 
successfully used in such types of equipment around the world. New 
designs, along with components and technology will help optimize the 
performance of these systems, thus improving their efficiency.

[[Page 86797]]

ii. SNAP Review Criteria
    Comment: FPA commented on the safety concerns regarding the use of 
a flammable VOC in the three end-uses and expressed the need for 
technician certification requirements for the use of propane in these 
equipment. FPA is concerned that the flammability of propane in the 
workplace will pose both worker safety risks as well as potential 
environmental hazards. FPA suggested that EPA further assess the safety 
and health risks of using propane in new uses, and also in existing 
uses.
    Response: EPA evaluated the flammability risks of propane in these 
three end-uses in the risk screens included in the docket for this 
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). EPA's evaluations followed the 
standard approach for evaluating health and environmental risks that 
the SNAP program has used over its 20-year history. The results found 
leaks of propane in commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very 
low temperature refrigeration equipment resulted in concentrations far 
below the LFL of 21,000 ppm, showing a lack of flammability risk when 
charge sizes at or below those established in the use conditions are 
used. Regarding technician certification requirements for the handling 
of flammable refrigerants, EPA notes that in recent years, training 
programs on flammable refrigerants have been developed and are 
currently available in the United States. The Agency intends to update 
the test bank for technician certification under CAA section 608 as we 
have done previously, and will consider including additional questions 
on flammable refrigerants. By adding such questions to the test bank, 
EPA would supplement but would not replace technician training programs 
currently provided by non-government entities. EPA will seek additional 
information and guidance on how best to incorporate this content 
through a separate process outside the scope of this final rule.
    Comment: NEDA/CAP commented that propane is a VOC and that under 
worst-case scenarios, the use of propane in new refrigeration and 
cooling equipment could create an issue for local air pollution control 
authorities in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. The 
commenter noted that any VOC (with any reactivity) must be reported to 
state/local/tribal and federal CAA regulators in biennial emissions 
inventories and annual permit reports under CAA Titles I and V, 
respectively. NEDA/CAP suggested that EPA's proposal will trigger a 
domino effect that will impact state/local and tribal air permitting 
authorities which will require immediate planning (and, potentially, 
permitting) problems with the potential to snowball with each proposed 
new and existing use for which propane is added. FPA also claims that 
use of propane could interfere with NAAQS attainment.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that under worst-case 
scenarios, the use of propane in new refrigeration and cooling 
equipment could create an issue for local air pollution control 
authorities in severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. The worst-
case scenario modeled by EPA was based on use of isobutane in all 
refrigeration equipment, even though its use has not been approved in 
all refrigeration equipment. Isobutane is a more reactive VOC than is 
propane. While that worst-case scenario did indicate an increase up to 
0.72 ppb in Los Angeles area, EPA determined that it did not accurately 
depict the risk of the use of propane in a limited subset of 
refrigeration equipment. Therefore, EPA evaluated a scenario where 
propane and three other HC refrigerants were used in a number of end-
uses where industry submitters had proposed their use, including those 
in this rule; in end-uses where EPA had already listed them as 
acceptable, subject to use condition; or in industries where a UL 
standard might allow for their use in the future. This scenario 
considers most end-uses that EPA is likely to address in the next few 
years. In this scenario, we found the worst-case change in ground-level 
ozone concentration was 0.15 ppb in 2030 (ICF, 2014a) and 0.44 ppb in 
2040 (ICF, 2016l). EPA also examined a scenario that considered only 
the HC refrigerants being listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, in this action or previously listed as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions. This analysis found worst-case impacts of 0.05 ppb 
in Los Angeles and less than 0.01 ppb in Houston or in Atlanta in 2040. 
This modeling contained conservative assumptions, such as the 
assumption that all refrigerant would be released to the environment 
and the assumption that no refrigerants other than hydrocarbons would 
be used in these end-uses. When modeling decades into the future, there 
are many sources of uncertainty that are likely greater in magnitude 
than the modeled increase in ozone concentrations (e.g., changes in the 
market, impacts on cloud cover due to climate change). In this analysis 
that corresponds to the end-uses listed in this rule and previous 
acceptable listings, the modeled incremental ground-level ozone 
concentrations are so low that they are difficult to separate from the 
impact of all other emissions. Given the conservativeness of the 
assumptions, the potential sources of uncertainty in the modeling, and 
the small magnitude of these modeled increases, we consider it highly 
likely that state and local agencies will be able to meet air quality 
goals without extensive or repeated new planning.
iii. Use Conditions
    Comment: UL suggested that EPA appears to be proposing changes that 
are outside of, but will have a direct impact on, industry voluntary 
consensus standards such as those published by UL. They asserted that 
the proposed rule contrasts with the requirements previously developed 
and recommended by the Joint Task Group that UL tasked with developing 
a common technical basis for addressing the safety of flammable 
refrigerants in various UL standards. UL recommended that EPA work 
within the framework of the established voluntary consensus standards 
process for revising and updating safety standards for the 
refrigeration and AC sector.
    Response: With one exception, the use conditions established for 
propane in the three end-uses are consistent with the UL standards. The 
one use condition that differs is the condition requiring a larger 
print size for the warning labels. This approach is consistent with the 
use conditions EPA has established for use of flammable refrigerants in 
a variety of refrigeration end uses. EPA believes it is necessary to 
require a larger print size because it would be difficult to see 
warning labels with the minimum lettering height requirement of \1/8\ 
inch in the UL standards. To the extent practicable, EPA attempts to 
rely upon the established voluntary consensus standards process.
    Comment: UL noted that EPA misunderstood the charge limit size in 
the Standard for Safety for Drinking Water Coolers, ANSI/UL 399, 
covering drinking water coolers using propane as a refrigerant. In 
accordance with ANSI/UL 399, Supplement SB, Paragraph SB3.2(b), the 
charge limit is 2.0 oz. (60 g) for refrigerants having an ASHRAE Class 
3 flammability classification. UL commented that the proposed rule 
specified that the charge limit was 150g (5.29 oz).
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the charge size in the 
proposed rule for drinking water coolers was not consistent with the 
charge limit size in the Standard for Safety for Drinking Water 
Coolers, ANSI/UL 399. In that standard the charge size limit is

[[Page 86798]]

currently set to 60 g. Based upon EPA's risk screen prepared for the 
proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0022), a worst-case release of an 
entire charge of 150 g of propane could result in exceeding the LFL in 
a small room, as in a small residential kitchen, while release of a 
charge of 60 g or propane, as per the UL standard, would not result in 
exceeding the LFL. In that risk screen, we analyzed larger charge sizes 
of up to 150 g only in the context of use in spaces such as commercial 
kitchens that are likely to be larger and have better ventilation than 
in a home; however, EPA cannot guarantee that equipment with larger 
charge sizes would be used in larger spaces, and 60 g is protective for 
all spaces in which this type of equipment may be used. EPA's intention 
was to reference the charge limit in ANSI/UL 399 and EPA is finalizing 
a charge limit of 60 g for water coolers consistent with ANSI/UL 399.
    Comment: UL noted that EPA proposed that a ``colored plastic sleeve 
or cap'' be secured to the service tube. The sleeve would be boldly 
marked with a graphic to indicate that the refrigeration circuit is 
flammable. UL suggested that the Agency provide more information 
describing the securement means of the sleeve or cap to the service 
tube so that it will not likely be removed (or broken off) for other 
than a servicing operation. Additionally, they suggested EPA provide a 
more thorough description of the flammable refrigerant ``graphic'' that 
is required to be located on the sleeve or cap is necessary.
    Response: The discussion of a ``colored plastic sleeve or cap'' was 
not a use condition, but rather an additional suggestion on how the use 
condition for colored markings on tubing could be implemented. An 
example of a sleeve would be a loop of plastic that completely wraps 
around the tube or hose at any service port and other parts of the 
system where service puncturing or other actions creating an opening 
from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected. The 
flammable refrigerant graphic referred to is the flame graphic already 
required by UL standards.
    Comment: UL noted that Clause 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2013 does 
not permit refrigerated products using refrigerants other than those 
having a flammability classification of A1 or B1 (i.e., nonflammable 
refrigerants) to be installed in public corridors and lobbies. Many ice 
machines and drinking water coolers are currently installed in the 
hallways and lobbies of hotels and other commercial establishments. 
This installation requirement in Clause 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 15 may 
make it difficult for ice machines and drinking water cooler 
manufacturers to transition to propane as a refrigerant.
    Response: Our listing of propane as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, in self-contained ice machines and drinking water coolers 
does not negate the need to comply with other requirements. Thus, other 
requirements might prevent individual end users from choosing equipment 
that uses propane. EPA understands that the ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2013 is 
currently being reviewed and thus it is possible that in the future 
additional refrigerant classifications may be permitted in the areas UL 
noted as currently limited to A1 or B1 (nonflammable) refrigerants. 
Industry organizations and the U.S. government are performing 
additional research on flammable refrigerants with a goal of providing 
the results to inform and revise ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013 and other 
standards as soon as possible, subject to ANSI's consensus process.\57\ 
For more information on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and the difference 
between flammability classes of refrigerants, see section VI.A.3.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable Refrigerant 
Research. http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170. June 2, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Chemours supported the listing of propane as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, for commercial ice machines, water coolers, 
and very low temperature refrigeration equipment provided safe handling 
practices for flammable refrigerants are incorporated into those use 
conditions, including, but not limited to technician training, venting 
prohibitions, and a prohibition of topping off systems with 
refrigerants different from the original refrigerant. NEDA/CAP also 
commented on the importance of technician training requirements and 
certifications for technicians that service propane-filled equipment 
before finalizing the proposed listing. They stated that although other 
flammable refrigerant blends have been approved since 2014, EPA 
proposed to require propane in larger volumes. They stated that as EPA 
moves toward allowing use of propane in larger new equipment, the 
technician requirements for inspecting this equipment, leak repair and 
prevention, and recharging or emptying equipment properly must be in 
place. Similarly, FPA suggested that EPA address technician training 
requirements for propane before finalizing the proposed listing.
    Response: Regarding training needs due to the handling of flammable 
refrigerants, EPA agrees with the commenter on the importance of such 
technician training, but does not agree that the training needs to be 
mandated. The refrigeration industry has been proactive in assuring 
that technicians are properly trained and, in recent years, a number of 
training programs on flammable refrigerants have been developed and are 
currently available in the United States that cover the topics 
suggested by the commenters. Also, millions of similar appliances 
around the world have been using HCs over decades with few reported 
incidents, even with charge sizes of 150 g in some cases. The charge 
limit of 150 g for self-contained commercial ice machines and very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment is the same as the charge limit EPA 
previously set for propane, isobutane, and R-441A in retail food 
refrigeration-stand-alone units and vending machines and for ethane in 
very low temperature refrigeration equipment and the charge limit of 60 
g for water coolers is close to the 57 g charge limit EPA requires for 
propane, isobutane, and R-441A in household refrigerators and freezers. 
Concerning venting prohibitions, see section VI.A.2.c. Concerning 
Chemours' suggestion to prohibit topping off systems with refrigerants 
different from the original refrigerant, we proposed that propane may 
only be used in new equipment designed for use with that refrigerant; 
we did not propose its use as a retrofit refrigerant. Thus, the use 
condition prohibits its use to ``top off'' a system designed for a 
different refrigerant. If the commenter's concern is that technicians 
may add a different refrigerant on top of propane already present in 
equipment designed for propane, we agree that ``topping off'' with a 
different refrigerant is inappropriate for any refrigerant. The SNAP 
regulations for this end-use do not currently address this issue; we 
will consider whether to propose such a revision in a future 
rulemaking, and not just for propane.
2. Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA Section 
608 for Specific End-Uses in the New SNAP Listing
a. Background
    Under section 608(c) of the CAA, it is unlawful for any person, in 
the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 
appliance to knowingly vent or otherwise knowingly release any ODS or 
substitute refrigerant into the environment. The Administrator may

[[Page 86799]]

exempt refrigerant substitutes from this general prohibition if she or 
he determines under section 608(c)(2) that venting, releasing, or 
disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment.
    For purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), EPA considers two factors in 
determining whether or not venting, release, or disposal of a 
refrigerant substitute during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, or 
disposal of appliances poses a threat to the environment. See 69 FR 
11948, March 12, 2004; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; and 80 FR 19453, 
April 10, 2015. First, EPA analyzes the threat to the environment due 
to inherent characteristics of the refrigerant substitute, such as GWP. 
Second, EPA determines whether and to what extent venting, release, or 
disposal actually takes place during the maintenance, servicing, 
repairing, or disposing of appliances, and to what extent such actions 
are controlled by other authorities, regulations, or practices. To the 
extent that it determines such releases are adequately controlled by 
other authorities, EPA generally defers to those authorities.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of propane in 
the three specific end-uses in this action, as well as the authorities, 
controls, and practices in place for that substitute. EPA also 
considered the public comments on the proposal for this action. Based 
on this review, EPA concludes that propane in these end-uses and 
subject to these use conditions are not expected to pose a threat to 
the environment based on the inherent characteristics of these 
substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant 
applications. EPA additionally concludes that existing authorities, 
controls, or practices help mitigate environmental risk from the 
release of propane in these end-uses and subject to these use 
conditions.
    In light of these conclusions and those described or identified 
above in this section, EPA is determining that based on current 
evidence and risk analyses, the venting, release, or disposal of 
propane in these end-uses during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, 
or disposing of the relevant appliances does not pose a threat to the 
environment.
    EPA is therefore exempting from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 
82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which propane is being 
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP 
program.
i. Inherent Characteristics of Propane
    EPA evaluated the potential environmental impacts of releasing into 
the environment propane in water coolers, self-contained commercial ice 
machines, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment. In 
particular, we assessed the potential impact of the release of propane 
on local air quality and its ability to decompose in the atmosphere, 
its ODP, its GWP, and its potential impacts on ecosystems. EPA also 
considered propane's flammability and toxicity risks from the end-uses 
addressed in this rule.
    As discussed previously, propane has an ODP of zero and a GWP of 
three and its effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. As to 
potential effects on local air quality, propane meets the definition of 
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded 
from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and 
maintain the NAAQS. Based on the analysis and modeling results 
described in section VI.A.1.b.i, EPA concludes that the release of 
propane from the end-uses in this action, in addition to the HCs 
previously listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for their 
specific end-uses, is expected to have little impact on local air 
quality. In this regard, EPA finds particularly noteworthy that even 
assuming 100 percent market penetration of propane and the other 
acceptable HCs in the acceptable end-uses, which is a conservative 
assumption, the highest impact for a single 8-hour average ozone 
concentration based on this analysis would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles 
compared to both the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 75 ppb and the new, more 
stringent NAAQS at 70 ppb.
    In addition, when examining all HC substitute refrigerants in those 
uses for which UL currently has standards in place, for which the SNAP 
program has already listed the uses as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, or for which the SNAP program is reviewing a submission, 
including those in this action, we found that even if all the HC 
refrigerant substitutes in appliances in end-uses listed acceptable, 
subject to use conditions in this action and listed as acceptable in 
previous rules were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact 
of less than 0.15 ppb for ground-level ozone in the Los Angeles 
area.\58\ The use conditions established in the SNAP listings limit the 
total amount of propane in each refrigerant circuit to 60 g or less or 
150 g or less, depending on the end-use. Because propane is not listed 
as acceptable for use in all refrigerant uses, the total amount of 
propane that could be emitted in the end-uses evaluated is estimated at 
roughly ten percent of total refrigerant emissions, or less than 16,000 
metric tons annually.\59\ Further, there are other substitute 
refrigerants that are not VOC that may also be used in these end-uses, 
so our analysis assuming complete market penetration of HCs is 
conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
    \59\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of its evaluation of potential environmental impacts, EPA 
concludes that propane in the end-uses for which it is listed under 
SNAP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this action is not 
expected to pose a threat to the environment on the basis of the 
inherent characteristics of this substance and the limited quantities 
used in the relevant end-uses. In this regard, EPA finds particularly 
noteworthy that even assuming 100 percent market penetration of propane 
and the other acceptable HCs in the end-uses where they are listed as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, which is a conservative 
assumption, the highest impact for a single 8-hour average ozone 
concentration based on this analysis would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles 
and less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the 
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone 
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Limits and Controls Under Other Authorities, Regulations, or 
Practices
    EPA expects that existing authorities, controls, and/or practices 
will mitigate environmental risk from the release of propane. Analyses 
performed for both this rule and prior rules (59 FR 13044, March 17, 
1994; 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; and 80 
FR 19453, April 10, 2015) indicate that existing regulatory 
requirements and industry practices limit and control the emission of 
propane, or other hydrocarbons, when used as a refrigerant in end-uses 
similar to this action. EPA notes that other applicable environmental 
regulatory requirements still apply and are not affected by the 
determination made in this action. This conclusion is relevant to the 
second factor mentioned above in the overall determination of whether 
venting, release, or disposal of a refrigerant substitute poses a 
threat to the environment.
    Propane and other HCs being recovered, vented, released, or 
otherwise disposed of from commercial

[[Page 86800]]

and industrial appliances are likely to be hazardous waste under RCRA 
(see 40 CFR parts 261 through 270). As discussed in the final rules 
addressing the venting of ethane, isobutane, propane, and R-441A as 
refrigerant substitutes in certain end-uses, incidental releases may 
occur during the maintenance, service, and repair of appliances subject 
to CAA section 608. Such incidental releases would not be subject to 
RCRA requirements for the disposal of hazardous waste, as such releases 
would not constitute disposal of the refrigerant charge as a solid 
waste, per se. Disposal or venting of propane from household appliances 
used in the home, such as a water cooler, is also generally not 
considered disposal of a hazardous waste under the existing RCRA 
regulations and could be vented under the household hazardous waste 
exemption, assuming other state or local requirements do not prohibit 
venting. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, for commercial and industrial 
appliances such as self-contained commercial ice machines, very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment, or water coolers used in an 
industrial or office setting, it is likely that propane and other 
flammable HC refrigerant substitutes would be classified as hazardous 
waste and disposal of propane from such appliances would need to be 
managed as hazardous waste under the RCRA regulations (40 CFR parts 261 
through 270), unless it is subject to a limited exception in those 
regulations if the ignitable refrigerant is to be recycled. Ignitable 
refrigerant that has been used and has become contaminated through use 
would fit the definition of a spent material under RCRA (40 CFR 
261.1(c)(1)) if it must be reclaimed prior to its reuse. Spent 
materials that are reclaimed are solid wastes per section 261.2(c). 
However, if the hydrocarbon refrigerant is recovered for direct reuse 
(i.e., no reclamation), it would not be classified as a solid or a 
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.2(e)). In most cases, recycling of these 
materials would require cleaning (i.e., reclamation) before they are 
reused.
    As discussed in section VI.A.1.b.ii of this action and sections 
VI.A.1.b.ii and VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR 22827; April 
18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the flammability and toxicity 
risks from propane in the end-uses in this rule. Propane is classified 
as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and subsequent addenda, 
indicating that it has low toxicity and high flammability (for a 
further discussion on ASHRAE safety categories, see section 
VI.A.1.b.i.(b). Propane has an LFL of 2.1 percent. In addition, like 
most refrigerants, HCs at high concentrations can displace oxygen and 
cause asphyxiation.
    To address flammability risks, this action establishes required use 
conditions and provides voluntary recommendations for its safe use (see 
section VI.A.1.b.iii). This SNAP listing limits the amount of propane 
in the refrigerant loop to 150 g in self-contained commercial ice 
machines and in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and 60 g 
in water coolers. These charge size limits also reflect the UL 563, UL 
399, and UL 471 industry standards, as discussed in the previous 
section. These use conditions mean that any potential propane emissions 
from any individual appliance will therefore be small. HC emissions 
from the three specific end-uses in this rule would be significantly 
smaller than those emanating from IPR systems, which are controlled by 
OSHA for safety reasons. Furthermore, it is the Agency's understanding 
that flammability risks and occupational exposures to HCs are 
adequately regulated by OSHA and building and fire codes at a local and 
national level.
    The release and/or disposal of propane is also controlled by 
authorities established by OSHA and NIOSH guidelines, various industry 
standards, and state and local building codes. To the extent that 
release during maintaining, repairing, servicing, or disposing of 
appliances is controlled by regulations and standards of other 
authorities, these practices and controls for the use of propane are 
sufficiently protective. These practices and controls mitigate the risk 
to the environment that may be posed by the venting, release, or 
disposal of propane during the maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 
disposing of self-contained commercial ice machines, very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment, and water coolers.
    EPA is aware of equipment that can be used to recover HC 
refrigerants. To the extent that propane is recovered rather than 
vented in specific end-uses and equipment, EPA recommends the use of 
recovery equipment designed specifically for flammable refrigerants in 
accordance with applicable safe handling practices. See section 
VI.A.1.b.iii for further discussion.
d. When does the exemption from the venting prohibition apply?
    In the provision establishing the exemption from the venting 
prohibition, EPA is also establishing that the exemption will apply as 
of January 3, 2017, the same as the effective date of the SNAP listing 
of propane in commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment.
e. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received comments from organizations and individuals with 
various interests in the refrigeration industry on the proposal to 
exempt propane in water coolers, commercial ice machines, and very low 
temperature freezers from the venting prohibition under section 608. 
Commenters included the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 
(the Alliance), an industry organization; Chemours and Honeywell, two 
chemical producers; Hudson Technologies Company (Hudson), a refrigerant 
reclaimer; NEDA/CAP, an organization representing manufacturers of a 
variety of refrigeration and AC equipment; and an anonymous citizen.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
    Comment: Honeywell commented that it does not object to the 
proposal to exempt propane from the venting prohibition. However, 
Honeywell urged EPA to consider exempting HFOs in certain end-uses 
(HFO-1234yf in MVAC systems; HFO-1234ze(E) in centrifugal, 
reciprocating, screw, and scroll chillers; and HFO-1233zd(E) in 
centrifugal chillers) based on their zero ODP, low-GWP, and low-VOC 
reactivity.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment as support for exempting 
propane in the three end-uses described in this rule from the venting 
prohibition. With regard to exempting certain HFOs in certain end-uses, 
the Agency takes this comment under advisement and may consider at some 
later date analyzing whether the release of these refrigerants poses a 
threat to the environment when vented, released, or disposed of, but 
has not done so for this rulemaking and thus is not taking final action 
on the commenter's suggested exemption.
    Comment: The Alliance, Hudson, Chemours, and Arkema commented that 
EPA should not exempt propane from the venting prohibition. A primary 
concern of the Alliance and Hudson Technologies is that refrigerants 
should be properly managed. The Alliance was concerned that separate 
servicing practices for propane could cause confusion and lead to 
inadvertent venting of HFCs. The Alliance requested that EPA explain 
why propane should

[[Page 86801]]

be treated differently from all other fluids. Hudson commented that the 
intentional venting of any product to the atmosphere is poor 
environmental policy, poor service practice and poor product 
stewardship and was concerned that exempting propane perpetuates the 
destructive practice of increasing new production to replace vented 
refrigerant. Arkema stated that they believe that EPA's 608 regulations 
foster sustainability and good product stewardship, aside from reducing 
risk from SNAP substances. They indicated, however, that exemptions 
from the venting prohibition for propane or other HCs can foster only 
waste and consumption.
    Response: EPA agrees that all refrigerants and refrigerant 
substitutes should be properly managed. However, EPA disagrees that 
proper management necessarily includes recovery in all cases. The 
refrigerant management practices in subpart F, including recovery, were 
designed with the properties of fluorinated refrigerants in mind. 
Requiring the recovery of refrigerants like water or nitrogen would 
provide no environmental benefit. For ammonia or chlorine, other 
regulations address the risks related to those specific compounds (for 
example, OSHA regulations that address risk to technician safety). 
Based on the analysis discussed previously, EPA has determined that 
venting, releasing, or disposing of propane in the end-uses in this 
rule does not pose a threat to the environment. The venting of propane 
in certain end-uses may also be the safest option in some situations, 
considering that such refrigerants are flammable but most existing 
recovery equipment is not designed and constructed for use with 
flammable refrigerants (e.g., with spark-proof components). Although it 
is true that the venting of propane allowed under the exemption may 
result in some additional waste and consumption, this is still 
preferable to unsafe recovery practices. Therefore, it is appropriate 
to treat propane differently from other refrigerant substitutes. EPA 
has also previously exempted propane from the venting prohibition when 
used in other specific end-uses, so this action is consistent with 
prior actions taken by EPA.
    EPA can minimize confusion about whether the refrigerant may or may 
not be vented and can also make technicians and the public aware of the 
flammability of a refrigerant through the use of red coloration for 
hoses and labeling use conditions so that they can take appropriate 
precautions. Together these markings clearly distinguish an appliance 
containing propane or other HC refrigerants which may be vented, from 
HFCs or other refrigerants that may not.
    Comment: Hudson commented that EPA has been inconsistent in relying 
on the lack of recovery equipment designed for recovering HCs as a 
rationale for exempting flammable refrigerants. Despite past concern 
about the lack of such equipment, EPA has not exempted HFC-32 or HFO-
1234yf, both flammable refrigerants, from the venting prohibition.
    Response: The Agency has discretion to determine whether to 
establish an exemption from the venting prohibition under CAA section 
608(c)(2). To make that determination, the Agency analyzes individual 
refrigerant substitutes, typically in discrete end-uses, to determine 
whether the venting, releasing, or disposal of that refrigerant 
substitute from those end-uses will pose a threat to the environment. 
For this rulemaking, EPA has analyzed the potential environmental 
threats from venting, releasing, or disposing propane from three end-
uses. EPA has provided its justification for allowing the venting of 
propane from these three end-uses in this action. EPA did not propose 
to exempt HFOs, such as HFO-1234yf, or HFC-32 from the venting 
prohibition in this action and thus did not analyze whether the 
venting, release, or disposal of those substances would pose a threat 
to the environment for this rule. Though these refrigerants may share 
the characteristic of flammability with propane, they have other 
physical characteristics and end-uses than propane. Moreover, the mere 
fact that the Agency has analyzed some flammable HC refrigerants in 
some specific end-uses and made the necessary determination to exempt 
those substances in those end-uses from the venting prohibition does 
not necessarily mean that such a determination would be appropriate for 
all flammable HC refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses.
    Comment: Hudson commented that propane's low GWP, and the small 
refrigerant charges involved with the approved uses, does not justify 
different treatment for this refrigerant, or for any of the previously 
approved and exempted flammable refrigerants.
    Response: The Agency disagrees that these characteristics do not 
justify different treatment for this refrigerant. GWP, ODP, and total 
possible usage are some of the characteristics appropriate to consider 
in determining whether the release of propane from these three end-uses 
poses a threat to the environment.
    Comment: The Alliance commented that the appropriateness of waiving 
the venting prohibition for propane requires ongoing consideration and 
examination, particularly as applications for flammable refrigerants 
are expanded and charge sizes increase.
    Response: EPA analyzes individual refrigerant substitutes, 
typically in discrete end-uses, to determine whether the venting, 
releasing, or disposal of those substances in those end-uses will pose 
a threat to the environment. The exemption that EPA is establishing 
today applies only to propane and only in three discrete end-uses that 
are subject to use conditions, including restrictions on charge size. 
Before establishing an exemption for propane in any other end-uses, EPA 
would analyze whether the venting, release, or disposal of propane in 
that end-use would pose a threat to the environment.
    Comment: An anonymous commenter noted that due to inconsistencies 
among overlapping regulations, there is confusion in the regulated 
community regarding releases of refrigerants which are hazardous wastes 
but are exempt from the prohibition on venting. The commenter further 
notes that this issue is not addressed within the regulation itself, 
which is the information source most of the regulated community will 
reference routinely in the future. The commenter provided sample 
language to be added to 82.154(a) to clarify that the exemption from 
the prohibition on venting provided in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F does 
not exempt the release of the listed refrigerants and substitutes from 
other applicable laws and regulations which may prohibit or limit 
releases into the environment.
    Response: One of the criteria EPA considers in determining whether 
a refrigerant poses a threat to the environment when released is 
whether such releases are controlled by other authorities, regulations, 
or practices. For example, HC refrigerant substitutes may be subject to 
restrictions under RCRA and ammonia may be subject to restrictions 
under OSHA regulations, and when those RCRA or OSHA requirements apply, 
they would disallow the release of these respective substances into the 
environment. EPA is finalizing regulatory text in 82.154(a) that 
clarifies that the exemption to the venting prohibition is specific to 
the prohibition under section 608(c).
f. Conclusion
    EPA has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of propane in 
the three specific end-uses in this action, as well as the authorities, 
controls, and practices in place for that substitute. EPA also 
considered the public comments on the proposal for

[[Page 86802]]

this action. Based on this review, EPA concludes that propane in these 
end-uses and subject to these use conditions are not expected to pose a 
threat to the environment based on the inherent characteristics of 
these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant 
applications. EPA additionally concludes that existing authorities, 
controls, or practices help mitigate environmental risk from the 
release of propane in these end-uses and subject to these use 
conditions.
    In light of these conclusions and those described or identified 
above in this section, EPA is determining that based on current 
evidence and risk analyses, the venting, release, or disposal of 
propane in these end-uses during the maintenance, servicing, repairing, 
or disposing of the relevant appliances does not pose a threat to the 
environment.
    EPA is therefore exempting from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 
82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses for which these HCs are being 
listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, under the SNAP 
program.
3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants for Retrofits 
in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps
a. Background
    Existing unitary split AC systems and heat pumps were not designed 
to use a flammable refrigerant. People and property have been harmed by 
the retrofit or so-called `drop-in' use of certain flammable 
refrigerants in existing unitary split AC and heat pump equipment 
designed to use a nonflammable refrigerant. For new room AC equipment, 
we have listed certain flammable refrigerants as acceptable on the 
basis that flammability risks can be addressed in designing the 
equipment and mitigated through use conditions. In contrast, existing 
equipment has not been designed for flammable refrigerants and we have 
not identified appropriate use conditions that can manage the 
flammability risk for retrofits such that these flammable refrigerants 
would pose similar or lower risk than other available refrigerants in 
this end-use.
i. What is the affected end-use?
    The residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use 
includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms, in single-
family homes, and sometimes in small commercial buildings. This end-use 
differs from commercial comfort AC, which uses chillers that cool water 
that is then used to cool air throughout a large commercial building, 
such as an office building or hotel. This rule specifically concerns 
unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, commonly called central AC. 
These systems include an outdoor unit with a condenser and a 
compressor, refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an evaporator, and 
ducts to carry cooled air throughout a building. Unitary split heat 
pumps are similar but offer the choice to either heat or cool the 
indoor space. This action applies to certain flammable refrigerants for 
retrofit use in this type of equipment.
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications 
pumps but are not covered by this section of the rule?
    The unacceptability determination for certain flammable 
refrigerants in this action does not apply to other types of 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pump equipment, but may do 
so in the future. Other types of residential and light commercial AC 
and heat pump equipment not included in this unacceptability 
determination include:
     Multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps;
     Mini-split air conditioners and heat pumps;
     Packaged outdoor air conditioners and heat pumps;
     Window air conditioners and heat pumps;
     Packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 
terminal heat pumps (PTHP); and
     Portable room air conditioners and heat pumps.
    For a description of these types of equipment, see section 
VI.A.3.a.i in the proposed rule (81 FR 22833; April 18, 2016).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is listing the following flammable refrigerants as 
unacceptable for retrofits in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps:
     All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include the HCs R-1150 (ethylene), 
R-170 (ethane), R-1270 (propylene), R-290 (propane), R-50 (methane), R-
600 (n-butane), R-600a (isobutane), R-601 (n-pentane), and R-601a 
(isopentane); the HC blends R-433A, R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, R-436B, R-
441A, and R-443A; and the refrigerant blends R-429A, R-430A, R-431A, R-
432A, R-435A, and R-511A. All of these refrigerants except R-435A 
contain HCs, with some also containing the flammable compounds dimethyl 
ether and HFC-152a.
     All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability 
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not 
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue 
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, 
Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
    For background on the flammability classes and their criteria in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, see section VI.A.1.b.i.(b).
    EPA is aware of a number of situations where companies have sold 
highly flammable refrigerants for use in residential AC that have not 
been submitted to SNAP for review. EPA has conducted enforcement 
actions against companies that have sold such substitutes in violation 
of EPA's regulations. EPA is also aware of multiple instances where 
people and property using one of the numerous refrigerants marketed as 
``22a'' in a residential AC system were harmed in explosions and fires, 
in part because the person servicing the AC system was not aware that 
the system contained a highly flammable refrigerant. Considering this 
demonstration of the flammability risks of retrofitting residential AC 
systems as well as the lack of risk mitigation available for existing 
equipment (e.g., charge limits or design for reduced leakage), EPA is 
listing R-22a, 22a, and other similar liquified petroleum gases as 
unacceptable, as well as refrigerants with a flammability 
classification of 3 in ASHRAE 34-2013 or that meet the criteria for 
such classification, including R-22a, 22a, and other similar liquified 
petroleum gases, as unacceptable in this end use.
    In addition to refrigerants specifically identified in the ASHRAE 
34-2013 standard as having a flammability classification of 3, EPA is 
listing refrigerants meeting the criteria of that standard as 
unacceptable. In other words, refrigerants are unacceptable if they 
exhibit flame propagation and either have a heat of combustion of 
19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or 
lower, when tested in accordance with ASTM E681 using a spark ignition 
source at 60 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa. Thus, refrigerants identified with a 
flammability classification of 3 in future editions of ASHRAE 34 would 
also be unacceptable if they meet those criteria. We are aware of a 
number of refrigerant products sold over the internet aimed at the 
market for retrofit usage in refrigeration and AC equipment using HCFC-
22 with names

[[Page 86803]]

containing ``22a,'' such as R-22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant 
Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-
22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and RED TEK 
22a. EPA has analyzed one of these refrigerants and determined that it 
contained propane mixed with a pine-scented odorant. These refrigerants 
are also identified as flammable in their Safety Data Sheets and are 
often identified as ``liquified petroleum gases.'' Although none of 
these liquified petroleum gas refrigerants have been submitted to SNAP 
for review, EPA expects that they all are comparable in their 
flammability to propane and other refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE 
flammability classification of 3. It is our understanding these 
refrigerants are all of the same or similar composition, are produced 
by a limited number of facilities using the same process, and then are 
marketed under different names by different distributors.
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for retrofit 
usage in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. All of the listed 
alternatives are HFC blends, with some containing small percentages 
(approximately five percent or less) of HCs. Specific blends include R-
125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 
R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 
R-424A, R-427A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition). 
These blends are all non-ozone-depleting. As shown in Table 3, they 
have GWPs ranging from approximately 1,770 for R-407C to 3,990 for R-
507A. Knowingly venting or releasing these refrigerants is prohibited 
under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1). 
The HFC components of these refrigerant blends are excluded from the 
definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, 
while the HC components are VOC.

  Table 3--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants Listed as Flammability Class 3 or Meeting the Criteria for
 Flammability Class 3 Compared to Other Refrigerants Listed as Acceptable for Retrofit in Existing Equipment for
                                       Residential and Light Commercial AC
                                [Unitary split AC systems and heat pumps] \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Refrigerants                 GWP               ODP                  VOC             Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All refrigerants identified as            2-120  0..................  Yes \3\...........  Unacceptable.
 flammability Class 3 in ANSI/
 ASHRAE Standard 34-2013.
All refrigerants meeting the              2-120  0..................  Yes \3\...........  Unacceptable.
 criteria for flammability
 Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE
 Standard 34-2013, including,
 but not limited to the
 products named R-22a, 22a,
 Blue Sky22a refrigerant,
 Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-
 22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a,
 Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost
 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-
 22a, OZ-Chill 22a, Priority
 Cool, and RED TEK22a.
R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F,     1,770-3,990  0..................  No................  Acceptable.
 R-421A, R-427A, R-507A.
Hot Shot 2, R-125/R-134a/R-600a     1,810-3,390  0..................  Yes \4\...........  Acceptable.
 (28.1/70.0/1.9), R-125/R-290/R-
 134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
 1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C,
 R-422D, R-424A, R-427A, R-
 434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
 (2003 formulation)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The entire refrigerant or most of the constituents are VOC.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    In the proposed rule (81 FR 22835; April 18, 2016), EPA provided 
information on the risk to human health and the environment presented 
by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable as compared with 
other available alternatives listed as acceptable for this end-use. In 
addition, a technical support document \61\ that provides the Federal 
Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, 
GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the 
relevant end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In summary, both the currently acceptable 
refrigerants and those we are listing as unacceptable in this action 
are non-ozone depleting. The refrigerants being listed as unacceptable 
would result in higher VOC emissions than the acceptable refrigerants, 
with the saturated HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) having a low impact 
and unsaturated HCs (e.g., propylene) having a significant impact (see 
section VI.A.1.b.i on the potential local air quality impacts of 
propylene and R-443A). The refrigerants being listed as unacceptable 
have significantly lower GWPs than the refrigerants that would remain 
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section VI.A.3.a.ii in the proposed rule (81 FR 
22835-36; April 18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the 
flammability and toxicity risks from the flammable refrigerants in the 
end-use in this rule. EPA is providing some of that information in this 
section as well. All refrigerants currently listed as acceptable in 
this end-use are nonflammable, resulting in no risk of fire or 
explosion from flammability of the refrigerant. In comparison, ASHRAE 
Class 3 refrigerants are highly flammable. As discussed in section 
VI.A.4.b.i, EPA analyzed the flammability impacts of one ASHRAE Class 3 
refrigerant, R-443A, and found that a release of the entire refrigerant 
charge inside a building from a larger unitary split AC system or heat 
pump could result in surpassing the LFL.\62\ Because of the large 
charge sizes required for this type of equipment and the similar LFLs 
for other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants, it is likely the LFL would also 
be surpassed

[[Page 86804]]

for other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants in a similar worst-case 
situation. Fires and harm to people and property have already occurred 
in multiple cases due to retrofit or drop-in use of R-22a and similar 
products in existing unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. As 
discussed above, EPA expects that R-22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, 
Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 
22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and 
RED TEK 22a are comparable in their flammability to propane and other 
refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE flammability classification of 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the acceptable refrigerants and the unacceptable refrigerants 
are able to be used in this end-use in accordance with their respective 
8-hr or 10-hr workplace exposure limits. However, acute exposure may 
also be of concern during use in unitary split AC systems and heat 
pumps because of possible exposure to consumers in the event of a 
sudden release. For instance, as discussed below in section VI.A.4.b.i, 
EPA analyzed the acute toxicity of the propylene component of one 
ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerant, R-443A, and found that a release of the 
entire refrigerant charge inside a building from a larger unitary split 
AC system or heat pump could result in surpassing the acute exposure 
limit.\63\ Because of the large charge sizes required for this type of 
equipment and somewhat lower acute exposure limits for the HC 
components of ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants compared to HFCs and the 
acceptable refrigerants in this end-use, acute exposure could be a 
concern for some specific Class 3 refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these end-uses, although use of the highly flammable 
refrigerants would result in a reduced climate impact, the safety risks 
of using these refrigerants in existing equipment that was designed for 
nonflammable refrigerants creates a more significant and imminent risk. 
In addition to flammability risk, in at least some cases, the 
likelihood for an exceedance of acute exposure limits of the 
unacceptable refrigerants also supports a determination that those 
refrigerants pose significantly greater risk than other available 
alternatives. The Agency is open to revisiting this listing decision if 
we receive information on how risks from the refrigerants listed as 
unacceptable can be sufficiently mitigated. Further information on 
these analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in the docket 
for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
ii. When will the listings apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same 
as the effective date of this regulation. To date, none of these 
substitutes have been submitted to EPA for this end-use for retrofit 
use. Under 40 CFR 82.174, manufacturers are prohibited from introducing 
them into interstate commerce for this end-use for retrofit use. Thus, 
manufacturers and service technicians should not be currently using 
these substitutes in the manner that would be prohibited by this 
listing decision.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in residential AC. Comments were in reference to 
the proposed listing status of ASHRAE Class 3 flammable refrigerants, 
extending the proposal to other end-uses, and use of unique fittings 
with flammable refrigerants. Most commenters supported the proposed 
listing decisions and effective date of 30 days after date of 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register, while one commenter 
suggested a listing as unacceptable was not needed for some specific 
refrigerants. Commenters generally agreed that use of flammable 
refrigerants in equipment that was not designed for them was 
potentially dangerous.
    Commenters included AHRI, the Japan Refrigeration and Air 
Conditioning Industry Association (JRAIA), and the Alliance, three 
industry organizations; Whitmyre Equipment Company and Whitmyre 
Research, consultants for A.S. Trust & Holdings; United Technologies 
Climate Controls & Security (UTC CCS and hereafter ``UTC''); Hudson, a 
refrigerant reclaimer; Chemours, a chemical producer; and environmental 
organizations NRDC and IGSD.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
    Comment: The Alliance, Chemours, Hudson, JRAIA, and NRDC, all 
supported EPA's proposal to list refrigerants classified as A3 (or 
meeting A3 criteria) under ASHRAE Standard 34 as unacceptable for 
retrofitting unitary split AC systems and heat pumps. AHRI, JRAIA, and 
Chemours supported the proposed listing, stating it would mitigate 
demonstrated risks of serious injury and property damage. NRDC and IGSD 
found EPA's proposed unacceptability finding for Class 3 flammable 
refrigerants in retrofit applications reasonable and necessary to 
ensure a safe transition to low-GWP alternatives.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and is finalizing these 
listing decisions as proposed.
    Comment: AHRI, JRAIA, and the Alliance requested that EPA list all 
refrigerants classified as A3 under ASHRAE Standard 34 as unacceptable 
for retrofitting in all types of residential and light commercial AC 
and heat pumps. JRAIA also requested similar treatment for retrofitting 
of flammable refrigerants to all types retail food refrigeration 
equipment. The commenters expressed concern that by issuing an 
unacceptability listing only for unitary split AC and heat pumps, some 
may conclude that it is currently acceptable to retrofit other, similar 
equipment classes with similar risks with these refrigerants.
    Response: EPA did not propose and is not finalizing provisions to 
list Class 3 flammable as unacceptable for retrofitting other types of 
refrigeration and AC equipment besides unitary split AC systems and 
heat pumps. This would require an additional opportunity for public 
comment. We have received reports of the use of highly flammable 
refrigerants only in unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, so we are 
less concerned that such refrigerants are likely to be used in other 
types of residential and light commercial AC and heat pump equipment. 
Further, in EPA's listings of the Class 3 flammable refrigerants 
propane, isobutane, and R-441A in a number of end-uses, including 
stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and room AC and heat 
pump equipment, we have included a use condition specifying that the 
listing is only for new equipment specifically designed for the 
refrigerant. Thus, EPA does not agree that the industry is likely to 
perceive an unacceptable listing only for retrofit of one type of 
equipment as implying acceptability of retrofit for other types of 
equipment. Further, as EPA has received no submissions for retrofitting 
flammable refrigerants in any residential AC or retail food 
refrigeration use and has not issued a listing for any such use, both 
introduction into interstate commerce and use in retrofit refrigeration 
and AC equipment are violations of EPA's SNAP regulations.

[[Page 86805]]

Thus, even without an explicit listing of unacceptability, it is not 
allowed to retrofit with flammable refrigerants in existing equipment.
    Comment: JRAIA commented that charging systems with refrigerants 
for which the equipment was not originally designed can lead to 
failures and malfunctions, as well as safety risks. The commenter 
stated that if defects occur in equipment due to improperly 
retrofitting with flammable refrigerant, even if no injury occurs, in 
most cases the equipment must be replaced with the equipment owners 
themselves responsible for the replacement cost.
    Response: EPA agrees that charging systems with refrigerants for 
which the equipment was not originally designed can lead to failures 
and malfunctions. However, that type of issue is not a consideration in 
determining whether to list a substitute as acceptable or unacceptable, 
though it could be considered in establishing use conditions for an 
acceptable substitute. The basis of EPA's unacceptability decision is 
that the overall risk to human health and the environment is greater 
for ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants because of the flammability risk, and 
in some cases the toxicity risk, than for other available substitutes 
for retrofitting in unitary split AC and heat pumps.
ii. Industry Standards and Codes
    Comment: UTC, with Carrier, Taylor, and Kidde Fenwal as member 
companies, stated that EPA should list Class 3 refrigerants as 
unacceptable for use in unitary split AC and heat pumps but should 
clarify that future Class 3 refrigerants added to successive editions 
of ASHRAE 34 will also be unacceptable. The commenter noted that the 
regulatory text references ANSI/ASHRAE standard 34-2013: Designation 
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, November 2013, and thus, 
EPA's determination of ``all refrigerants'' meeting the criteria in the 
2013 edition of the standard might not extend to refrigerants which 
meet the criteria in future editions of the standard.
    Response: To the extent that future Class 3 refrigerants meet the 
criteria in ANSI/ASHRAE 34-2013, they will be unacceptable. 
Specifically, if a refrigerant exhibits flame propagation and either 
has a heat of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or 
an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or lower, it is unacceptable because it is a 
refrigerant ``meeting the criteria for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 34-2013.'' However, EPA cannot create a listing that 
would automatically find refrigerants unacceptable based on the 
criteria for Class 3 refrigerants in future versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 34, 
as those criteria are not available for EPA or the public to consider. 
If ASHRAE changes the standard to revise those criteria, EPA could 
consider whether to take rulemaking action considering whether to 
modify the listing decision to reflect the criteria in the revised 
standard.
iii. Unique Fittings
    Comment: AHRI supported the use of separate servicing fittings for 
flammable refrigerants beyond labeling and color coded hosing and 
piping. The commenter stated that equipment originally designed for 
non-flammable refrigerants will not necessarily be equipped with 
different fittings increasing the risk of injury during servicing. 
Whitmyre Equipment Company and Whitmyre Research asserted that there is 
no need for concern about AC or heat pump systems being retrofitted for 
use with R-443A or other propylene-containing refrigerants, as this 
will not be permitted due to use of unique hardware fittings which have 
already been discussed with, and approved by, EPA.
    Response: There currently is no requirement for unique fittings on 
residential AC and heat pump equipment. EPA has not proposed and is not 
finalizing the use of separate servicing fittings for flammable 
refrigerants. We agree that such fittings can be useful to prevent the 
use of refrigerants that a piece of equipment was not designed to use 
and could consider whether to modify the existing acceptable listings 
to include such a requirement. While it is true that certain of the 
refrigerants EPA is listing as unacceptable in this end-use have 
developed unique fittings for other end-uses for which there is a 
unique fitting requirement, it is unclear that would prevent use as a 
retrofit in the end-uses at issue here since for those end-uses, there 
is no unique fitting requirement.
4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and R-443A for New Residential and 
Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage Warehouses, and 
Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
a. Background
    The refrigeration and AC end-uses addressed in this action include:
     Centrifugal chillers;
     positive displacement chillers;
     residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, 
including both self-contained units (e.g., window air conditioners, 
PTACs and PTHPs, portable AC units) and split systems; and
     cold storage warehouses.

EPA has received a submission for R-443A in new residential and light 
commercial AC and heat pumps and for new window air conditioners, a 
subset of that end-use. We have also received a submission for 
propylene for use in new chillers for commercial comfort AC 
(centrifugal and positive displacement chillers) and for cold storage 
warehouses. Because the two refrigerants, R-443A and propylene, have 
similar properties and risk profiles, we reviewed both refrigerants for 
all four end-uses.
    Propylene, also known as propene or R-1270, is a HC with three 
carbons, the chemical formula C3H6, and the CAS 
Reg. No. 115-17-1. R-443A is a HC blend \64\ consisting of 55 percent 
propylene, 40 percent propane, and five percent isobutane by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we review and list 
refrigerants with specific compositions (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 
1994). To the extent possible, we follow ASHRAE's designations for 
refrigerants. Blends of refrigerants must be reviewed separately. 
For example, we consider each blend of propane with isobutane to be 
a different and unique refrigerant, and each would require separate 
submission, review and listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has indicated its intent to issue a proposed energy 
conservation standard for portable air conditioners, a subset of the 
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps end-
use. For further information on the relationship between this action 
and other federal rules, see section VI.A.3.b.v of the proposed rule 
(81 FR 22841; April 18, 2016).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is listing the refrigerants propylene (R-1270) and 
R-443A as unacceptable in new equipment in residential and light 
commercial AC and heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal 
and positive displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. EPA's 
concerns about propylene and R-443A are primarily due to the effect of 
these refrigerants on local air quality, although for some equipment 
with higher charge sizes, flammability and toxicity are also a concern. 
Other acceptable refrigerants are available in the same end-uses that 
pose overall lower risk than R-443A and propylene.
i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable in new 
equipment in residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, cold

[[Page 86806]]

storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive displacement chillers 
for commercial comfort AC. In the proposed rule (81 FR 22837-22841; 
April 18, 2016), EPA provided information on the risk to human health 
and the environment presented by the alternatives that are being found 
unacceptable as compared with other available alternatives listed as 
acceptable in these end-uses. In addition, a technical support document 
that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the 
SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 
acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses may be found in the 
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
    Propylene and R-443A have an ODP of zero. Many acceptable 
substitutes in the refrigeration and AC end-uses addressed in this rule 
also have an ODP of zero (e.g., HFCs, HFOs, CO2, ammonia, 
HCs, and not-in-kind technologies).\65\ Of the acceptable refrigerants 
having an ODP, they have ODPs ranging from 0.00024 to 
0.047.66 67 Thus, propylene and R-443A have ODPs comparable 
to or less than the ODPs of other alternatives in the end-uses in this 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine, 
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
    \66\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
    \67\ Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to 
service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to 
manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to 
charge new appliances assembled onsite. Substitutes containing these 
HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.065. Class I and II ODS 
historically used as refrigerants in these end-uses have ODPs that 
range from 0.01 to 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Propylene and the components of R-443A have relatively low GWPs of 
less than ten. As shown in Table 4, GWPs of acceptable refrigerants in 
these end-uses range from zero (NIK) to 3,990 (R-507A) in new 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps; zero (ammonia and 
not-in-kind technologies) to 630 (R-513A) in new chillers, and zero 
(ammonia) to approximately 1,830 (R-407F) for new cold storage 
warehouses.\68\ The GWPs of propylene and R-443A are lower than those 
of a number of HFCs and HFC/HFO blends, such as R-450A and R-513A in 
all four end-uses; HFC-134a, R-407C and R-407F in cold storage 
warehouses and residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps; and 
R-410A in residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. The GWPs 
of propylene and R-443A are comparable to or higher than those of 
CO2, propane, isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), 
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind technologies 
such as Stirling cycle, water/lithium bromide absorption, desiccant 
cooling, or evaporative cooling, each of which is acceptable in new 
equipment for one or more of the four end-uses. In addition, propylene 
and R-443A have lower GWPs than those of ODS historically used in these 
end-uses, CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); and R-502 (GWP 
= 4,660).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ At the time of proposal, the highest GWP of any acceptable 
alternative in each of these end-uses was 3,990.
    \69\ IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, 
S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor 
and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible 
at: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

  Table 4--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propylene and R-443A Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Equipment for Residential and Light Commercial AC and
                          Heat Pumps, Cold Storage Warehouses, Centrifugal Chillers and Positive Displacement Chillers \1\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Refrigerants                     GWP                       ODP                              VOC                       Listing status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propylene, R-443A.....................             2-3  0.................................  Yes..........................  Unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-32 \3\, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A,        675-3,990  0.................................  No...........................  Acceptable.
 R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 417A, R-421A, R-507A.
R-290 \3\, R-441A \3\, THR-03 \3\, R-          3-3,390  0.................................  Yes \4\......................  Acceptable.
 125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/1.9), R-
 125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/
 42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
 424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
 (2003 formulation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               New Cold Storage Warehouses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F, R-450A, R-           1-1,810  0.................................  No...........................  Acceptable.
 513A, R-717, R-744.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6,         30-1,810  0--Not public \5\.................  Yes \4\......................  Acceptable.
 R-437A, RS-24 (2002 composition), RS-
 44, SP34E, THR-02, THR-03.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                New Centrifugal Chillers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-           0-630  0-0.00034.........................  No...........................  Acceptable.
 513A, R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-               7-560  0--Not public \5\.................  Yes \4\......................  Acceptable.
 514A, THR-02.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           New Positive Displacement Chillers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717,            0-631  0.................................  No...........................  Acceptable.
 R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-514A, THR-02           0-560  0--Not public \5\.................  Yes \4\......................  Acceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production
  and consumption.
\3\ Listed only for use in room AC units.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.
\5\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business
  information.


[[Page 86807]]

    In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of 
propylene and the components of R-443A on local air quality. Propylene 
and the three components of R-443A, propylene, propane, and isobutane 
meet the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
and are not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing 
SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. However, there is a significant 
difference in the photochemical reactivity between propylene and the 
other two HCs. Propylene, because it has an unsaturated double bond 
between two carbons, is significantly more reactive in the atmosphere 
than propane, the saturated HC with the same number of carbon atoms, 
and isobutane. For example, the Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) of 
propylene, in gram ozone per gram of the substance, is 11.57 while the 
MIR of propane is 0.56 g O3/g and the MIR of isobutane is 
1.34 g O3/g.\70\ Thus, propylene is roughly 21 times more 
reactive than propane and roughly nine times more reactive than 
isobutane for the same mass. Propylene is also more than 100 times more 
reactive than HFC-134a (MIR < 0.1) and a number of other HFCs 
acceptable for these end-uses and is significantly more reactive than 
unsaturated halogenated substitutes in these end-uses, such as HFO-
1234yf (MIR = 0.28), HFO-1234ze(E) (MIR = 0.098), or trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice \TM\ 1233zd(E)) (MIR = 0.040).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential 
impacts on local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely. We 
used EPA's Vintaging Model to estimate the HC emissions from these 
scenarios and EPA's Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model to 
assess their potential incremental contributions to ground-level ozone 
concentrations.\71\ The first analysis assumed that all refrigerant 
used was emitted to the atmosphere, as it could be if refrigerants were 
exempted from the venting prohibition of CAA section 608. In that 
highly conservative scenario, the model predicted that the maximum 
increase in the 8-hour average ground-level ozone concentration would 
be 0.72 ppb in Los Angeles if the most reactive saturated HC, 
isobutane, were the only refrigerant and it was all emitted to the 
atmosphere. If the unsaturated HC propylene was assumed to be the only 
refrigerant used in equipment and it was all emitted (if it were to be 
exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608), the model 
predicted that the maximum increase in the 8-hour average ground-level 
ozone concentration would be 6.61 ppb in Los Angeles, which is the area 
with the highest level of ozone pollution in the United States. For 
purposes of comparison, the ground-level ozone limit under the NAAQS 
has been 75 ppb since 2008.\72\ We have concerns that widespread 
emissions of propylene from use as a refrigerant could interfere with 
the ability of some nonattainment areas to reach attainment, both with 
the 2008 NAAQS and the new, more stringent standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
    \72\ The standard has recently been lowered to 70 ppb (80 FR 
65292; October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also performed less conservative analyses that considered the 
end-uses where these refrigerants would more likely be used, based upon 
submissions received and upon end-uses where there are industry 
standards addressing the use of flammable refrigerants. Propylene was 
previously listed as an acceptable substitute in industrial process 
refrigeration. EPA has received submissions for use of R-443A in 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps and window air 
conditioners. We have received a SNAP submission for use of propylene 
in cold storage warehouses and in commercial comfort AC in chillers, 
and have received inquiries about using propylene in retail food 
refrigeration. In addition, EPA is aware that UL has developed 
standards addressing use of flammable refrigerants in stand-alone 
retail food refrigeration equipment and coolers; vending machines; 
water coolers; commercial ice machines; household refrigerators and 
freezers; and room air conditioners; and is currently developing 
revisions to UL 1995 for residential AC equipment. Thus, we considered 
scenarios where propylene would be used and emitted (1) in all 
stationary AC and refrigeration end-uses, but excluding MVAC, (2) in 
all refrigeration end-uses and all AC end-uses except for MVAC and 
chillers for commercial comfort AC. For further details on the 
scenarios and end-uses in the analysis, see the docket for this 
rulemaking.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this still conservative assessment of refrigerant use, we 
found that if all the refrigerant in appliances in the end-uses 
analyzed were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of 4.47 
ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area. In the other cities examined in the 
analysis, Houston and Atlanta, which have also had historically high 
levels of ambient ozone, impacts were smaller (as much as 0.67 and 0.39 
ppb, respectively).\74\ Approximately 72-73 percent of the emissions 
were estimated to come from the residential and light commercial AC and 
heat pumps end-use in those less conservative analyses, indicating that 
emissions from this end-use could have a particularly large impact. 
Both the most conservative as well as the less conservative but more 
probable assessments indicated there could be significant air quality 
impacts of these refrigerants if they are released to the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An analysis we performed to support the proposed rule specifically 
examining use of R-443A and propylene in residential and light 
commercial AC and heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and commercial 
comfort AC (centrifugal and positive displacement chillers) found 
noticeable impacts from these end-uses. If propylene were the only 
refrigerant in these end-uses and it was emitted from residential and 
light commercial AC and heat pumps and cold storage warehouses,\75\ the 
analysis indicated there would be a worst-case impact of 4.45 ppb ozone 
in the Los Angeles area, 1.21 ppb in Houston, and 0.65 in Atlanta, 
respectively.76 77 Assuming that propylene were used in all 
cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and positive displacement 
chillers; room air conditioners could use either R-443A or the 
currently listed VOC refrigerants propane or R-441A; other residential 
and light commercial AC and heat pumps all used R-443A; and these 
refrigerants were all emitted from cold storage warehouses and 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, there would be a 
worst-case impact of 2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.77 ppb 
in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in Atlanta, respectively.78 79
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The analysis assumed that local and state safety 
regulations required recovery of refrigerant from commercial comfort 
air conditioning equipment.
    \76\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
    \77\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
    \78\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
    \79\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 86808]]

    Based on these analyses, EPA estimates that potential emissions of 
saturated HCs, if used as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in 
the refrigeration and AC sector would have little impact on local air 
quality. However, emissions of propylene, an unsaturated HC, whether 
used as propylene or as part of the blend R-443A, could have a 
significant negative impact, whether for all refrigeration and AC uses 
or for the uses in which we are listing these refrigerants as 
unacceptable.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ ICF, 2014a and attachment, Follow-on Assessment of the 
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone 
Concentrations. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to public comments, EPA reevaluated these substitutes, 
assuming a prohibition on venting propylene and R-443A. However, even 
that additional analysis showed that there was still a potential for 
significant negative impacts on air quality. Assuming that propylene 
were used in all cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers; room air conditioners could use either R-443A or 
the currently listed VOC refrigerants propane or R-441A; other 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps all used R-443A; and 
these refrigerants were subject to the venting prohibition, there would 
be a worst-case impact of 2.09 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.54 
ppb in Houston, and 0.28 ppb in Atlanta, respectively.\81\ For further 
details on the scenarios and end-uses in the analyses, see the docket 
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the 
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone 
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecosystem effects, primarily effects on aquatic life, of the 
substitutes we are listing as unacceptable are expected to be small as 
are the effects of other acceptable substitutes. Propylene, propane and 
isobutane are all highly volatile and would evaporate or partition to 
air, rather than contaminate surface waters. Neither propylene nor R-
443A pose a greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of 
other substitutes for these uses.
    As discussed in section VI.A.3.b.iii in the proposed rule (81 FR 
22839-41; April 18, 2016), EPA's SNAP program evaluated the 
flammability and toxicity risks from propane in the end-uses in this 
rule. Risk screens containing these evaluations are provided in the 
docket, but EPA is providing some of that information in this section 
as well. Propylene and R-443A are both designated as A3 refrigerants 
according to ASHRAE 34-2013 and subsequent addenda. Thus, their 
flammability is comparable to that of ethane, propane, isobutane, and 
R-441A, other refrigerants that EPA has listed as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions, in a number of end-uses (76 FR 78832, December 20, 
2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). Due to their flammable nature, 
propylene and R-443A could pose a significant safety concern for 
workers and consumers if they are not properly handled. In the presence 
of an ignition source (e.g., static electricity spark resulting from 
closing a door, using a torch during service, or a short circuit in 
wiring that controls the motor of a compressor), an explosion or a fire 
could occur when the concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. The 
LFLs of the substitutes are 2.03 percent for R-443A \82\ and 2 percent 
for propylene.\83\ To determine whether flammability would be a concern 
for manufacturing and service personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed 
a plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of the 
refrigerants. Those analyses found that a release of the entire charge 
from equipment with smaller charge sizes, such as room air conditioners 
or small chillers, would not exceed the LFL. Release of larger charge 
sizes such as from a large residential unitary split AC system or heat 
pump or a large chiller could exceed the LFL under some 
circumstances.84 85 Further information on these analyses 
and EPA's risk assessments are available in section VI.A.3.b.iii of the 
proposed rule (81 FR 22837; April 18, 2016) and in the docket for this 
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to Incompleteness 
Letter from A.S. Trust & Holdings to EPA--Sent March 7, 2014.
    \83\ Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene.
    \84\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
    \85\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of propylene and R-443A on 
human health, EPA considered occupational risk for all end-uses, and 
also considered consumer risk for the residential and light commercial 
AC and heat pump end-use. EPA investigated the risk of asphyxiation and 
of exposure to toxic levels of refrigerant for a plausible worst-case 
scenario and a typical use scenario for each refrigerant in each end-
use.
    To evaluate toxicity of both refrigerants, EPA estimated the 
maximum TWA exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a 
30-minute TWA exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would be more 
typical of occupational exposure for a technician servicing the 
equipment. We compared these short-term and long-term exposure values 
to relevant industry and government workplace exposure limits for 
propylene and the components of R-443A (including potential 
impurities). The modeling results indicate that both the short-term 
(30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure concentrations would 
be below the relevant workplace exposure limits in cold storage 
warehouses, centrifugal and positive displacement chillers, and 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps.\86\ The acceptable 
refrigerants in these end-uses and those we are listing as unacceptable 
in this action can be used in these end-uses in accordance with their 
respective workplace exposure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as 
residential AC and heat pumps, EPA also performed a consumer exposure 
analysis. EPA considered toxicity limits for consumer exposure that 
reflect a short-term or acute exposure such as might occur at home or 
in a store or other public setting where a member of the general public 
could be exposed and could then escape. In EPA's initial risk screen 
used to support the proposal, the estimated 30-minute consumer 
exposures to the refrigerants exceeded the toxicity limits for the 
propylene component of R-443A in all cases but the least conservative, 
for a room air conditioner. In response to public comments on the 
proposal, EPA reconsidered the toxicity profile and the toxicity limit 
for consumer exposure for propylene and determined that its acute 
toxicity was not significantly different from that of propane. We 
reanalyzed the modeled exposures against the same exposure threshold we 
used for analyzing acute toxicity of propane (e.g., 6,900 ppm over 30 
minutes by analogy to the 30-minute Acute Emergency Guideline Limits 
(AEGL)-1 for propane). Using this less conservative analysis, the 
propylene fraction of R-443A could meet the exposure limit in smaller 
room

[[Page 86809]]

air conditioners, but not in split AC systems with higher charges.
    The currently acceptable refrigerants such as HFCs, HFC blends, or 
HFOs, are able to achieve their acute exposure limits, which are 
generally higher than that for propylene. Because of the relatively low 
acute exposure limit for propylene and the potential for exceedances of 
that limit, acute exposure may be a greater concern than for many other 
acceptable refrigerants in residential and light commercial AC systems 
and heat pumps with larger charge sizes. Further information on these 
analyses, EPA's risk assessments, as well as information from the 
submitters of the substitutes are in the docket for this rulemaking 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
ii. When will the listings apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same 
as the effective date of this regulation. To our knowledge, 
manufacturers and service technicians are not currently using these 
substitutes in the end-uses in this rule. We note that EPA has only 
recently found submissions complete for these substitutes, and under 
the SNAP program regulations, a substitute may not be introduced into 
interstate commerce prior to 90 days after EPA receives a complete 
submission.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in R-443A and propylene. Comments were in 
reference to the proposed listing status of R-443A and propylene and 
the environmental, flammability, and toxicity impacts of R-443A and 
propylene. Some commenters supported the proposed listing decisions and 
effective date of 30 days after date of publication of the rule in the 
Federal Register, while others opposed them and suggested that R-443A 
and/or propylene should be listed as acceptable or acceptable, subject 
to use conditions in one or more of the four end-uses being considered. 
Some commenters thought that these refrigerants could be used safely 
and with minimal environmental impacts with appropriate controls, while 
others expressed concern about the flammability and environmental 
impacts of these refrigerants.
    Commenters included Whitmyre Research and Whitmyre Equipment 
Corporation, consultants for A.S. Trust & Holdings; UTC; Chemours, a 
chemical producer; Refrigerants, Naturally!, an industry organization 
supporting the use of HC refrigerants; NRDC, IGSD, and EIA; and a 
number of anonymous commenters.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
    Comment: NRDC and IGSD stated that EPA's extensive tests on 
exposure and toxicity, as well as the effects on local air quality, 
show significant concern with propylene. The commenters stated that 
propylene and majority-propylene blends are neither ideal nor necessary 
for achieving EPA's climate goals, and threaten a safe, 
environmentally-sound transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. Chemours 
also supported EPA's proposal.
    Response: EPA agrees that there are significant concerns with the 
use of propylene--in particular, the potential air quality impacts. 
Other alternatives are available for the same uses that pose lower 
overall risk to human health and the environment.
    Comment: EIA commented that both academic studies and end users 
cite propylene as a very high performing refrigerant, offering both 
energy efficiency and increased volumetric cooling capacity in 
comparison to other alternatives, and provided links to some of this 
information. EIA stated that propylene's low GWP and high performance 
in terms of efficiency and capacity carries significant environmental 
benefits, its flammability risks can be mitigated, and its benefits 
significantly outweigh potential limited environmental impacts of a 
small relative contribution of propylene as a refrigerant to formation 
of ground level ozone.
    Refrigerants, Naturally! commented that propylene has particular 
advantages over propane such as the same or better efficiency, a larger 
cooling capacity giving more compact systems, higher LFL and also a 
distinctive smell. The commenter claimed that combined, these lead to 
more compact and safer systems (in terms of lower charge sizes per kW 
of cooling, smaller flammable volumes in event of a leak and pre-
warning to technicians working on systems). Both commenters noted that 
propylene is already safely used in Europe and the United States, 
particularly in stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment, as 
well as in positive displacement chillers and remote condensing units. 
Refrigerants, Naturally! recommended that EPA reconsider its proposed 
decision and stated that it would be significantly preferable to impose 
a ban on venting propylene than to introduce a ban on its use.
    Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by 
the commenters concerning the performance of propylene as a refrigerant 
but does not find this information a sufficient reason for changing our 
proposal, given the primary basis for EPA's decision is effects on 
local air quality. Concerning comments that propylene is already used 
in Europe and the United States, we note that propylene is only listed 
as acceptable in industrial process refrigeration and not in the other 
types of equipment mentioned by the commenters. EPA disagrees with the 
commenters on other points concerning the SNAP criteria. Refrigerant 
performance, refrigerant capacity, energy efficiency, and use of 
odorants are not among the SNAP program's review criteria. Concerning 
flammability, the LFL of propylene is not significantly different from 
that of propane (2 percent versus 2.1 percent). We note that additional 
work is underway on industry standards to address flammability risks 
for most of the end-uses in this final rule. EPA disagrees that 
propylene can be assumed to have a small relative contribution to the 
formation of ground-level ozone, considering both the results of EPA's 
analyses, discussed in this section under the heading ``Environmental 
Impacts,'' and the lack of a way for EPA to limit sales and use to a 
specific amount. Emissions from industrial process refrigeration 
equipment are already part of existing VOC emissions, and use in 
additional end-uses would result in additional, incremental VOC 
emissions that could result in significant impacts, depending on the 
amount used. As discussed in the section ``Environmental Impacts,'' 
prohibiting venting of propylene (and R-443A) is not sufficient to 
ensure minimal impacts on local air quality or to mitigate the 
environmental risks of these refrigerants. Also see the previous 
response concerning how propane and other available low-GWP 
refrigerants compare to propylene in EPA's evaluation.
i. Environmental Impacts
    Comment: Refrigerants, Naturally! and Whitmyre Research stated that 
there is no need for concern about R-443A being released into the air 
because R-443A is not exempt from the venting prohibition. The 
commenters stated that R-443A refrigerant will be recovered and 
recaptured during servicing by trained and certified technicians. 
Refrigerants, Naturally! and EIA

[[Page 86810]]

recommended that EPA perform another assessment to re-evaluate the 
assumptions made and to consider controls to mitigate the release and 
venting of propylene and R-443A.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the CAA section 608 prohibition on 
venting sufficiently addresses potential risks due to impacts on air 
quality. There are refrigerant emissions from causes other than venting 
that could result in sufficient emissions of propylene to have 
significant impacts on local air quality. As discussed in the preamble 
to the proposed rule, ``Other emissions could occur that are not 
subject to the venting prohibition and no equipment is free of 
refrigerant emissions. Because of the reactivity of these refrigerants, 
those emissions could interfere with the ability of some nonattainment 
areas to reach attainment, both with the 2008 NAAQS and the new, more 
stringent standard'' (81 FR 22839). Examples of refrigerant releases 
that are not subject to the venting prohibition are releases during 
good-faith efforts to service equipment, releases at installation, 
leaks during the lifetime of the equipment, and any refrigerant that is 
not withdrawn from the equipment at its end of life.
    EPA repeated its local air quality analysis assuming use of 
propylene in chillers for commercial air conditioning and in cold 
storage warehouses and use of R-443A in residential air conditioning 
and heat pumps.\87\ This analysis also assumed use of propane and R-
441A in room air conditioners, where they have already been listed as 
acceptable, as well as R-443A. In this follow-on analysis, EPA assumed 
that the venting prohibition remains in place for propylene and R-443A. 
Although emissions were reduced relative to the scenarios where all HC 
refrigerants were exempted from the venting prohibitions, the analysis 
still showed that there could still be significant impacts. For 
example, in the revised analysis, the incremental increase in the 
maximum 8-hour average ozone value estimated for Los Angeles was 2.1 
ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the 
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone 
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Whitmyre Research said all of EPA's analyses, and 
particularly Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (in which propylene is the sole 
refrigerant used in all refrigeration and AC; in all refrigeration and 
AC uses except MVAC; and in all refrigeration and AC uses except MVAC 
and chillers, respectively), cross the line from being overly-
conservative to having no real-world applicability because they 
unrealistically assume a rapid takeover of the market with propylene-
based refrigerants, thereby ignoring the realities of the refrigerant 
market. This commenter suggested that EPA should focus upon Scenario 4, 
the most realistic of the scenarios analyzed, which in the commenter's 
view does not justify restrictions on the use of R-443A in split system 
air conditioning and heat pumps, window ACs or portable room ACs. In 
contrast, NRDC and IGSD noted that Scenario 1 shows widespread use and 
venting of propylene in refrigeration and AC contributing almost seven 
ppb to ground-level ozone concentrations in Los Angeles, demonstrating 
the value of EPA's proposed unacceptability finding.
    Response: Concerning the three most conservative scenarios, 
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were not intended to be realistic projections of 
the refrigerant market, but rather, to provide screening estimates to 
see if there would be some level of refrigerant emissions that could 
result in unacceptably high increases in ground-level ozone. See our 
response to the same comment at 80 FR 19474 (April 10, 2015).
    The scenario suggested by the first commenter, Scenario 4, would 
not consider impacts from use of propylene and R-443A in all of the 
end-uses for which they have been submitted--R-443A in residential 
split system AC and heat pumps and propylene in cold storage warehouses 
and centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for commercial 
comfort AC. Under the scenarios where EPA also considered the four end-
uses for which R-443A and propylene were submitted result in most of 
the emissions, and thus, the scenario suggested by the commenter would 
likely underestimate the impact of emissions of these two substitutes 
on air quality. EPA analyzed additional Scenarios 5, 6, 7, and 8 to 
evaluate potential impacts of propylene and R-443A in the end-uses 
addressed in this action.\88\ The analysis of Scenario 6, a scenario 
assuming use of R-443A for residential split system AC and heat pumps, 
along with some use of propane and R-441A for room air conditioners, 
and for propylene in cold storage warehouses and centrifugal and 
positive displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC, found there 
would be a worst-case impact of 2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area, 
0.77 ppb in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in Atlanta, respectively (see NPRM at 
81 FR 22839). In response to comments that EPA should not assume that 
all propylene or R-443A is vented, EPA created Scenario 8, where it was 
assumed that intentional venting of propylene and R-443A during 
service, maintenance, repair, and disposal, were prohibited in those 
same end-uses. Under this scenario, the worst-case impacts would be 2.1 
ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.54 ppb in Houston, and 0.28 ppb in 
Atlanta, respectively. We considered these less conservative 
assumptions to show that, even if the venting prohibition were 
observed, emissions of R-443A from residential split system AC and heat 
pumps and emissions of propylene from cold storage warehouses and 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers could result in air 
quality impacts that are not significantly different from those in the 
analyses we relied upon in our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the 
Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone 
Concentrations. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that EPA was inconsistent in leak 
profiles used in its ground-level ozone modeling and the modeling for 
occupational exposure impacts. The commenter stated that if EPA had 
used those more realistic assumptions in its ground-level ozone 
analysis, this would have reduced by nearly 89 percent the ``disposal'' 
emissions in the analysis.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the 
disposal emissions should be the same as those used in EPA's 
occupational exposure analysis. The release estimates used in the 
occupational exposure estimates at disposal are for release in the 
vicinity of workers involved in disposing of the equipment and do not 
include releases to the environment when equipment leaks at the end of 
its useful life. In an additional analysis, rather than assuming the 
release of 100 percent of remaining charge at disposal, EPA reassessed 
emissions at disposal using the assumptions in EPA's Vintaging Model--
the same assumptions we use when analyzing emissions of HFC 
refrigerants from the same kinds of equipment. These emission rates 
reflect input from industry reviewers and historic information. They 
also reflect emissions due to leaks from equipment over the lifetime of 
the equipment as well as emissions at disposal. The remaining emissions 
were still significant, resulting in worst-case incremental ground-
level ozone of 2.1 ppb.
    Comment: Richard Maruya of A.S. Trust & Holdings commented that the 
proposed unacceptable listing for propylene is an abuse of EPA's 
authority, since propylene is not listed

[[Page 86811]]

by EPA as a hazardous air pollutant under the CAA.
    Response: It is not necessary for a substitute to be listed as a 
hazardous air pollutant in order for EPA to list it as unacceptable 
under the SNAP program established by section 612 of the CAA. Rather, 
EPA must determine that there are other alternatives available or 
potentially available for the same use that pose lower overall risk to 
human health and the environment.
ii. Assumptions in EPA's Analyses
    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the release of any 
refrigerant from air-conditioning or heat pump units must be viewed 
probabilistically--that is, only a very small fraction of AC or heat 
pump units would experience leaks at any given point in time, and only 
a small fraction of these leaks would be sudden releases. The commenter 
stated that there is no basis for assuming that every possible leak in 
an R443A-based system would be sudden and complete, as opposed to slow 
and diluted. Values of 0.1 to one percent are much more realistic than 
100 percent full release.
    Response: With respect to EPA's assumptions for estimating total 
emissions for its air quality analysis, EPA assumed 100 percent release 
of refrigerant at disposal in most of the scenarios, to simulate a 
situation where venting would not be prohibited. As discussed 
previously, EPA considered scenarios where venting would be prohibited 
and also considered emissions from leaks. However, based upon the 
historical information EPA used in establishing the Vintaging Model and 
on reviewer input of those data, we consider the commenter's estimated 
probability of leaks to be low, particularly for residential split AC 
and heat pump equipment and for older equipment, which would be more 
likely to leak through extended lines. The study that was the basis for 
the commenter's estimates was based upon monitoring of commercial AC 
equipment in supermarkets of a type and age that was not described. If 
the equipment in the study was chiller equipment, this leak rate would 
be reasonable and close to the annual average leak rate EPA used in its 
emissions analysis for chillers, but the leak rate would be low for 
residential or light commercial AC and heat pump equipment, 
particularly for split systems.
    With respect to EPA's leak assumptions in our risk screens for 
purposes of assessing flammability and toxicity impacts, we first 
conducted a worst-case analysis that assumed a release of 95 percent of 
the refrigerant charge within one minute. This was an initial screen to 
determine whether the refrigerant would ever potentially exceed the LFL 
or relevant exposure limits. Since there were some potential 
exceedances with the most conservative assumptions, EPA then considered 
additional, less conservative assumptions concerning ventilation rates, 
charge sizes, and stratification or complete mixing of release 
refrigerant, and did not evaluate smaller leaks. EPA agrees with the 
commenter that slow, small leaks are likely to be far more common than 
large leaks. However, EPA must consider the possibility of a complete 
release because that is a possible, if less frequent, situation.
    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that EPA analyses incorrectly 
assumed air-exchange rates far lower than those allowed by ASHRAE 
standards incorporated in building codes (at least 0.35 ACH in typical 
residential structures). Based on data from Pandian et al. (1998),\89\ 
the median residential air exchange rate in the United States (across 
all regions, all seasons) is 0.5 ACH. Therefore, the presumed exposures 
are unlikely and unrealistic for both the toxicity and flammability 
scenarios presented in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Pandian et al., 1998. ``Correcting Errors in the Nationwide 
Data Base of Residential Air Exchange Rates.'' Journal of Exposure 
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577-585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree that the air exchange rates used in the 
scenarios are not representative and do not represent likely scenarios. 
First, we note that the air-exchange value from ASHRAE is from a 2016 
standard and applies only to newly constructed buildings; thus, it does 
not apply to existing housing stock, which is the vast majority of what 
is available. Second, both the value from ASHRAE and the median value 
from Pandian et al. fall within the range of air exchange rates that 
EPA analyzed of 0.11 to 0.67 ACH.
    Comment: Whitmyre Research and Whitmyre Equipment Corporation 
claimed there is no need for concern about leakage because a safety 
valve design option already exists (per the request of EPA) that will 
greatly limit refrigerant loss during leak events.
    Response: A safety valve, such as the check valve suggested by the 
commenter for R-443A, may reduce the size of leaks and thereby reduce 
risk of using the refrigerant. However, the submitter did not provide 
information on applying the check valve to equipment in this end-use. 
It is not clear, based on the information provided for the check valve 
in another end-use, that it would mitigate risk sufficiently to say R-
443A poses lower overall risk to human health and the environment. For 
instance, if the check valve works as described, it could reduce the 
amount of refrigerant leaked and potentially avoid exceedances of the 
LFL or the acute exposure limit. However, it is not clear that this 
check valve would be able to avoid slower leaks that over time 
contribute substantially to VOC emissions and to adverse air quality 
impacts, even if it works as designed. Further, EPA has not seen 
sufficient information to be confident of the performance of the safety 
valve.
iii. Flammability
    Comment: Whitmyre Research and Refrigerants, Naturally! stated that 
EPA's discussion of flammability risk does not account for probability 
and therefore greatly overstates any concern for use of R-443A in both 
normal operation and maintenance/repair/disposal situations. Whitmyre 
Research stated that in order for there to be a flammability risk, 
there must be a co-occurrence of a leak event and a spark generation 
event. Subsequently, the probabilities of fire for normal operation of 
these devices, when charged with the specified amount of R-443A, and 
during maintenance, repair, and disposal, are quite low as calculated 
by the commenter in a fault tree analysis (FTA) included in the 
submission for R-443A. Refrigerants, Naturally! commented that there 
should be no differentiation between R-443A and other HCs in regards to 
flammability.
    Response: EPA agrees that flammability risk for R-443A and 
propylene would not be significantly different from the risks for other 
HC refrigerants for the same uses. EPA's risk screen is intended to 
look first at reasonable worst-case scenarios and then at more typical 
scenarios, while remaining protective, and is not intended to discuss 
probability. EPA did evaluate the probability of events presented by 
the submitter in the FTA. As discussed in this section VI.A.4.c.i under 
``Assumptions in EPA's Analyses,'' the study that was the basis for the 
commenter's estimates was based upon monitoring of commercial AC 
equipment in supermarkets of a type and age that was not described. If 
the equipment in the study was chiller equipment, this leak rate would 
be reasonable and close to the annual average leak rate EPA used in its 
emissions analysis for chillers, but the leak rate would be low for 
residential or light commercial AC and heat pump equipment, 
particularly for split systems. Thus, the probabilities estimated by 
the commenter likely

[[Page 86812]]

underestimate risks for residential and light commercial AC and heat 
pumps. In addition to worst-case scenarios, more typical scenarios, and 
FTAs, EPA also considered where there are industry standards or 
controls in place that can mitigate flammability risks.
    Comment: UTC supported EPA's proposal to list both R-443A and 
propylene as unacceptable in residential and light commercial AC and 
heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. However, the commenter 
believed that they also should be found unacceptable based on 
flammability concerns. In particular, the commenter asserted that since 
both propylene and R-443A are Class 3 flammable refrigerants, they 
should be considered unacceptable.
    Response: EPA disagrees that flammability concerns should also 
provide a basis for listing R-443A and propylene as unacceptable in all 
the proposed end-uses. EPA previously listed two ASHRAE Class 3 
refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use only in 
new room air conditioners (i.e., propane and R-441A). For those 
refrigerants, EPA established use conditions that limited charge size 
and that would mitigate flammability risks. We note that the 
flammability risks for R-443A and propylene are similar to those for 
other Class A3 refrigerants.
    For equipment with larger charge sizes, such as some unitary split 
AC systems and heat pumps or most centrifugal and positive displacement 
chillers, the flammability risk is a greater concern than for equipment 
with smaller sizes, such as self-contained room air conditioners. 
However, by stating the flammability risk is greater for equipment with 
larger charge sizes, EPA is not implying that such risks could never be 
mitigated. ASHRAE, AHRI, and DOE are investing $5.2 million in research 
with the goal of using the results to update industry standards, 
subject to the ANSI consensus process, to address flammability risks. 
Such updates to standards would address risks in a broader range of 
equipment than the current UL standards.
iv. Toxicity and Exposure
    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the Agency had 
``misconstrued the toxicity of propylene.'' The commenter stated that 
propylene is widely recognized as having very low toxicity by 
inhalation (e.g., narcosis occurs at 35-46 percent by volume). Whitmyre 
Research stated that that the Agency's concern for the toxicity of 
propylene is misplaced, because (1) the Agency's modeled exposures are 
based on flawed methods and incorrect assumptions; (2) R-443A is only 
partially made of propylene; (3) propylene is simply not toxic at the 
modeled levels; and (4) the Agency used inappropriate toxicity 
benchmarks. Specific assumptions in some of EPA's scenarios that the 
commenter disagreed with included the length of time for the entire 
refrigerant charge to release, the ventilation rates, and the 
assumption of stratification of refrigerant (i.e., pooling near the 
floor). The commenter also stated that the Agency must match the time-
frame of exposure to catastrophic releases of R-443A (minutes) in 
establishing a toxicity benchmark.
    Response: Based on this comment, EPA reconsidered the available 
toxicology data for propylene and agrees that it indicates lower 
concern for acute exposure than indicated in our risk assessment for 
the proposed rule. Concerning the commenter's complaint about the 
methods and assumptions for modeled exposures, EPA's analysis looked at 
a variety of scenarios. These scenarios considered ventilation rates 
both above and below those suggested by the commenter and both 
stratification of refrigerant and complete mixing of refrigerant within 
the space. We note that with a higher ventilation rate than that 
suggested by the commenter and with an assumption of no refrigerant 
stratification, concentrations reached 9,680 ppm over 30 minutes from 
release of a larger charge for a split system, exceeding both the 
excursion limit of 1,500 ppm and an acute exposure limit of 6,900 ppm 
over 30 minutes, analogous to the AEGL-1 for propane. EPA separately 
evaluated the propylene fraction when comparing modeled concentrations 
against the guideline for propylene, and thus, considered that it is 
only part of R-443A's composition.
    We agree that the modeled exposure levels are below the level at 
which toxicity has actually been observed. However, it is standard 
practice to use more conservative values in evaluating toxicity risk 
than the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) seen in studies to 
account for uncertainty, such as variability within the general 
population or differences between species. Concerning the toxicity 
benchmark used by EPA--an excursion limit of three times the ACGIH 
TLV--EPA agrees that there could be other, less conservative benchmarks 
that could be used. We reviewed the available toxicity data for 
propylene and also considered how the toxicity profile of propylene 
differs from that of propane to determine what might be an appropriate, 
less conservative benchmark. We concluded that there were not major 
differences between the two HCs that warranted using a much lower acute 
exposure limit for propylene than for propane.\90\ Therefore, we 
reevaluated consumer exposure to propylene using an acute exposure 
limit of 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes for propylene, analogous to the 
AEGL-1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. In that revised evaluation, releases 
of the propylene fraction of R-443A from smaller room air conditioners 
could meet this acute exposure limit, but releases from split AC 
systems and heat pumps with higher charges could exceed the acute 
exposure limit. Thus, we still consider toxicity of propylene in R-443A 
to potentially be of concern for residential and light commercial AC 
and heat pump equipment with large charge sizes such as split AC 
systems, but it is not a concern for room air conditioners with limited 
charge sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene acute toxicity 
for R-443A risk screen. Prepared for EPA. July 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that there is no asphyxiation 
risk at the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) limit; it 
is not an indicator of asphyxiation risk.
    Response: EPA agrees that the IDHL is not an indicator of 
asphyxiation risk; however, EPA used a minimum oxygen concentration of 
12 percent in assessing asphyxiation risk and did not use the IDLH.
    Comment: Whitmyre Research stated that the TLV of 500 ppm for 
propylene that was established by ACGIH is a chronic exposure limit to 
be applied only to repeated exposures at least 40 hours per week over 
an occupational lifetime. ACGIH based the TLV of 500 ppm for propylene 
on nasal irritation effects occurring in treated animals exposed 6 
hours per day, five days per week, for 103 weeks (2 years). No such 
nasal effects were observed in rats or mice exposed acutely (i.e., 
single inhalation dose) or when exposed to up to 10,000 ppm propylene 
for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week for 14 days (ACGIH 2006).
    Response: EPA agrees that the ACGIH's TLV for propylene, like other 
TLVs, is intended to be a chronic exposure limit and is based on longer 
term exposure. However, the ACGIH also recommends that short term 
excursions over a TLV should be no more than three times the TLV, on a 
regular basis, and in no case should exceed five times the TLV. The 
commenter has not suggested a specific

[[Page 86813]]

value that they propose EPA should use instead to assess risks of 
short-term exposure.
5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Centrifugal Chillers and for New Positive Displacement Chillers
a. Background
i. What are the affected end-uses?
    In the proposed rule, EPA described two chiller end-uses, 
specifically centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. 
We draw attention to the fact that, as discussed there, in some cases 
the same refrigerant is used in both end-uses. Of note is the fact that 
HFC-134a is used for some centrifugal chillers, namely ``high-
pressure'' centrifugal chillers, as well as in some positive 
displacement chillers, such as screw chillers. In addition, as 
discussed below, at least two alternatives--HFO-1234ze(E) and R-513A--
have been used in both types of chillers. EPA received many comments 
concerning chillers that did not specifically say whether the comment 
was referencing centrifugal chillers, positive displacement chillers, 
or both. Therefore, in today's rule, we are addressing both end-uses in 
this section.
    Centrifugal chillers are equipment that utilize a centrifugal 
compressor in a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. They are 
typically used for commercial comfort AC although other uses do exist. 
Centrifugal chillers tend to be used in larger buildings, such as 
office buildings, hotels, arenas, convention halls, airport terminals, 
and other buildings.
    For commercial comfort and some other applications, centrifugal 
chillers typically cool water that is then pumped to fan coil units or 
other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to the occupied 
spaces transferring the heat to the water. The heat absorbed by the 
water can then be used for heating purposes, and/or can be transferred 
directly to the air (``air-cooled''), to a cooling tower or body of 
water (``water-cooled'') or through evaporative coolers (``evaporative-
cooled''). See section VI.A.4.a.i of the proposed rule for additional 
information on the centrifugal chiller end-use (81 FR 22841-42; April 
18, 2016).
    Positive displacement chillers are vapor compression cycle chillers 
that utilize positive displacement compressors, such as reciprocating, 
screw, scroll or rotary types. Positive displacement chillers are 
applied in similar situations as centrifugal chillers, primarily for 
commercial comfort AC, except that positive displacement chillers tend 
to be used for smaller capacity needs such as in mid- and low-rise 
buildings. See section VI.A.4.b.i of the proposed rule for additional 
information on the positive displacement chiller end-use (81 FR 22841-
42; April 18, 2016).
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications but 
are not covered by this section of the rule?
    Other equipment including packaged rooftop units and split system 
air conditioners, both of which fall under the SNAP end-use 
``residential and light commercial air conditioning,'' can also be used 
for commercial comfort AC, typically for even smaller capacity needs 
than positive displacement chillers. These equipment types are not 
centrifugal or positive displacement chillers and hence are not covered 
under this section of the rule. EPA responds to comments regarding the 
scope of chillers--both centrifugal and positive displacement--end-uses 
in section VI.A.5.c.i.
iii. What refrigerants are used in centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers?
    EPA discussed historical and recent use of refrigerants in 
centrifugal chillers in section VI.A.4.a.i.(c) of the proposed rule (81 
FR 22842; April 18, 2016). Since then, EPA has become aware of numerous 
additional demonstrations, availability, and announcements regarding 
alternative refrigerants for use in centrifugal chillers. For example, 
Honeywell stated in their comments that ``[s]everal manufacturers 
currently offer high-efficiency chillers, air-cooled (outdoor) and 
water-cooled (indoor), using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes ranging from tens 
of tons to hundreds of tons'' and listed some examples, including some 
centrifugal chillers. Multiple companies have introduced chillers using 
HFO-1234ze(E), including Star Refrigeration,\91\ Klima-Therm,\92\ 
Airedale,\93\ Geoclima,\94\ Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,\95\ Smardt 
Chiller Group,\96\ RC Group,\97\ Engie Refrigeration,\98\ and 
Climaveneta.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Star Refrigeration, 2012. ``Star's Three-Way Development 
Test for R-1234ze(E).'' July 2012. This document is accessible at 
http://www.star-ref.co.uk/star/images/stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%2082%20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf.
    \92\ RAC, 2012. ``Klima-Therm discusses world's first HFO 
chiller for Waitrose.'' January 10, 2012. This document is 
accessible online at http://www.racplus.com/features/klima-therm-discusses-worlds-first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/8624689.article.
    \93\ The NEWS, 2014. ``Airedale Chiller with Low-GWP HFO 
Refrigerant to Cool New John Lewis Store.'' June 9, 2014. This 
document is accessible at http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126828-airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo-refrigerant-to-cool-new-john-lewis-store.
    \94\ Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is 
accessible at http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
    \95\ Mitsubishi, 2012. ``Deployment to New Series of `eco Turbo 
chiller ETI series.' '' This document is accessible at http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/491/491058.pdf.
    \96\ SMARDT, 2016. ``Revolutionary Energy Savings for the Built 
Environment'', ``Trendsetting Technologies for Centrifugal 
Chillers.'' These documents are available at http://climatecontrolme.com/2013/12/trendsetting-technologies-for-centrifugal-chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE%20ENGLISH%20JAN%202016.pdf.
    \97\ RC Group, 2016. ``Unico Turbo Air Cooled Liquid Chiller.'' 
This document is accessible at http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/Prodotti/?idP=1563.
    \98\ Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ``Quantum: Series and features 
of the energy-efficient chiller series.'' This document is 
accessible at https://www.engie-refrigeration.de/export/sites/cofelyrefrigeration/content/documents/ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_Quantum_Folder.pdf.
    \99\ Climaveneta, 2015. ``Against Global Warming with the NEW 
TECS2 HFO Chillers.'' January 12, 2015. This document is accessible 
at http://www.climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press-Releases/112.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Centrifugal chillers using the alternative R-1233zd(E) have also 
been offered, from at least three manufacturers: Trane (a brand of 
Ingersoll Rand),\100\ Carrier (a brand of UTC) \101\ and Mitsubishi 
Heavy Industries.\102\ Ingersoll Rand confirmed in their comment that 
they have R-1233zd(E) centrifugal chillers available now and further 
stated that they will have centrifugal chillers under their Trane brand 
using R-514A available in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal 
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and 
Canada.'' June 15, 2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
    \101\ Carrier, 2016. ``Carrier China Showcases latest 
Innovations at China Refrigeration Expo.'' April 7, 2016. This 
document is accessible at http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-article/carrier_china_showcases_latest_innovations_at_china_refrigeration_expo.aspx.
    \102\ MHI, 2015. ``MHI Develops `ETI-Z Series' of Next-
generation Centrifugal Chiller--Adopt New Non-ozone-depleting 
Refrigeration to Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' June 10, 2015. 
This document is accessible at www.mhi-global.com/news/story/1506101900.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth alternative that is already available for some centrifugal 
chillers is R-513A. For instance, Johnson Controls announced this year 
that the centrifugal (and screw) chillers they offer, originally 
designed for HFC-134a, are compatible with R-513A.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances 
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with 
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA discussed historical and recent use of refrigerants in positive

[[Page 86814]]

displacement chillers in section VI.A.4.b.i.(c) of the proposed rule 
(81 FR 22846; April 18, 2016), noting for instance that Trane 
introduced a series of positive displacement chillers offered with R-
513A and that UTC had installed a screw chiller using HFO-1234ze(E).
    Since then, EPA has become aware of additional demonstrations, 
availability and announcements regarding alternative refrigerants for 
use in positive displacement chillers. For example, in their comments, 
Ingersoll Rand noted their commitment to transition its entire chiller 
portfolio, including positive displacement screw and scroll chillers, 
before the end of 2018. They separately announced their intention to 
use R-452B in ``small chillers'' as well as other products.\104\ 
Johnson Controls also announced that they were offering multiple 
positive displacement chillers, covering their entire line of screw 
chillers, with the choice of R-513A refrigerant.\105\ It was reported 
that UTC chose HFO-1234ze(E) for their global line of screw 
chillers.\106\ Blue Box has designed its Kappa Rev range of screw 
chillers specifically for HFO-1234ze(E).\107\ This refrigerant is also 
available in positive displacement chillers from Geoclima.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Ingersoll Rand, undated. ``Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC 
Portfolio Using
    Next Generation, Low Global Warming Refrigerant, R-452B.'' This 
document is accessible at http://company.ingersollrand.com/content/dam/ir-corp/documents/pdf/2016-DR55-Update-Release-FINAL.pdf.
    \105\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances 
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with 
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. This document is 
accessible at http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
    \106\ RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for 
global chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is 
accessible at http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
    \107\ Cooling Post, 2015. ``Blue Box offers R1234ze chiller 
option.'' April 29, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/blue-box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/.
    \108\ Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is 
accessible at http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is EPA's final decision?
    For new centrifugal chillers, EPA proposed to change the status as 
of January 1, 2024, of the following refrigerants from acceptable to 
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-
245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 
composition), and THR-03. We also proposed narrowed use limits for HFC-
134a and R-404A for certain centrifugal chillers. In this action, we 
are finalizing the status changes and narrowed use limits that we 
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new 
centrifugal chillers are summarized in Table 5.

    Table 5--Change of Status Decisions for New Centrifugal Chillers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes         Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal Chillers (new     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-  Unacceptable as of
 only).                        134a, HFC-227ea,      January 1, 2024,
                               HFC-236fa, HFC-       except where
                               245fa, R-125/134a/    allowed under a
                               600a (28.1/70/1.9),   narrowed use limit.
                               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-
                               423A, R-424A, R-
                               434A, R-438A, R-
                               507A, RS-44 (2003
                               composition), and
                               THR-03.
Centrifugal Chillers (new     HFC-134a............  Acceptable, subject
 only).                                              to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for
                                                     military marine
                                                     vessels, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
Centrifugal Chillers (new     HFC-134a and R-404A.  Acceptable, subject
 only).                                              to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for human-
                                                     rated spacecraft
                                                     and related support
                                                     equipment, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new positive displacement chillers, EPA proposed to change as 
of January 1, 2024 the status of the following refrigerants from 
acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, 
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 
R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), 
SP34E, and THR-03. We also proposed narrowed use limits for HFC-134a 
and R-404A for certain positive displacement chillers. In this action, 
we are finalizing the status changes and narrowed use limits that we 
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new 
positive displacement chillers are summarized in Table 6.

    Table 6--Change of Status Decisions for New Positive Displacement
                                Chillers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes         Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Displacement         FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-  Unacceptable as of
 Chillers (new only).          134a, HFC-227ea,      January 1, 2024,
                               KDD6, R-125/134a/     except where
                               600a (28.1/70/1.9),   allowed under a
                               R-125/290/134a/600a   narrowed use limit.
                               (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-
                               424A, R-434A, R-
                               437A, R-438A, R-
                               507A, RS-44 (2003
                               composition),
                               SP34E, and THR-03.
Positive Displacement         HFC-134a............  Acceptable, subject
 Chillers (new only).                                to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for
                                                     military marine
                                                     vessels, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
Positive Displacement         HFC-134a and R-404A.  Acceptable, subject
 Chillers (new only).                                to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for human-
                                                     rated spacecraft
                                                     and related support
                                                     equipment, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 86815]]

i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    Other refrigerants for new centrifugal chillers not subject to this 
action are HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-450A, R-
513A, R-514A,\109\ R-717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon dioxide), THR-02, and 
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.\110\ In the proposed rule and 
SNAP Acceptability Determination 31, EPA provided information on the 
environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that are 
being found unacceptable compared with alternatives listed as 
acceptable (81 FR 22842, April 18, 2016; and 81 FR 32242-45, May 23, 
2016). In addition, a technical support document \111\ that provides 
the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria 
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable 
alternatives as well as those we are finding unacceptable for new 
centrifugal chillers may be found in the docket for this rulemaking 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ In SNAP Determination 31 (81 FR 32241; May 23, 2016), EPA 
found acceptable a blend of 74.7 percent by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) 
and 25.3 percent by weight trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. The Standing 
Standard Project Committee updating ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 has 
proposed assigning this blend a designation of R-514A, which is how 
we refer to it throughout section VI.A.5 of this rule.
    \110\ ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 designates this chemical as R-
1233zd(E), which is how we refer to it throughout section VI.A.5 of 
this rule.
    \111\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new centrifugal chillers, the refrigerants we are listing as 
unacceptable have an insignificant ODP. Acceptable refrigerants HFO-
1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-513A, 
R-514A, R-717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon dioxide), and THR-02 also have 
an insignificant ODP. The alternative refrigerant R-1233zd(E) has an 
ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034.112 113 Estimates of this 
compound's potential to deplete the ozone layer indicate that even with 
worst-case estimates of emissions, which assume that this compound 
would substitute for all compounds it could replace, the impact on 
global atmospheric ozone abundance would be statistically 
insignificant.\114\ R-514A has an ODP of approximately 0.00006, lower 
than that of R-1233zd(E) and comparable to HFC-134a's calculated ODP of 
less than 0.000015,\115\ which has generally been described as zero by 
EPA and in common practice. Thus, the acceptable alternatives have ODPs 
lower than or of the same practical effect to the ODPs of the 
alternatives which EPA is listing as unacceptable, and lower than the 
ODPs of ODS historically used in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ 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.
    \113\ 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.
    \114\ 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.
    \115\ The ODP of HFC-134a was estimated to be less than 1.5 x 
10-5 using a theoretical 2-dimensional model. 
Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. 
Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. 1994. Do hydrofluorocarbons 
destroy stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71-75. Available online at 
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-552/011-552.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable through this action 
have GWPs ranging from about 920 to 9,810. As shown in Table 7, 
alternatives acceptable for this end-use not subject to this action 
have GWPs ranging from zero to 630.

                                    Table 7--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Centrifugal Chillers 1 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Refrigerants                     GWP                      ODP                            VOC                       Listing status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-           0-630  0-0.00034........................  No.......................  Acceptable.
 513A, R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-               7-560  0--Not public \3\................  Yes \4\..................  Acceptable.
 514A, THR-02.
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa...................     1,030-1,430  0................................  No.......................  Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, THR-03................       920-1,220  Not public \3\...................  Yes \4\..................  Unacceptable.
R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-         1,770-3,220  0................................  No.......................  Unacceptable.
 423A, HFC-227ea.
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/      1,985-3,250  0................................  Yes \4\..................  Unacceptable.
 290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-
 417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
 R-434A. R-438A, RS-44 (2003
 composition).
HFC-236fa, R-404A, R-507A.............     3,920-9,810  0................................  No.......................  Unacceptable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown
  in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business
  information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    One of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action (THR-02), 
as well as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the 
listing from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290 
(propane), R-600 (n-butane), or other substances that are VOCs. These 
amounts are small and for this end-use are not expected to contribute 
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\116\ HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (constituents of R-514A) are considered 
VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the 
definition of VOC. In the actions where EPA listed these refrigerants 
as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants in this end-use 
pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone formation than 
other alternative refrigerants that do not meet the definition of VOC 
under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or that are specifically 
excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to 
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants listed as acceptable and not subject to this 
action are highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, 
rather than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life 
are expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or 
ecosystem effects than those of the refrigerants for which we are 
changing the listing from acceptable to unacceptable for this end-use.

[[Page 86816]]

    With the exceptions of HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, all other 
refrigerants listed as acceptable and those we are listing as 
unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable at 
standard temperature and pressure using the standard test method ASTM 
E681; however, at higher temperatures it is mildly flammable. It is 
classified as a Class 2L (mild flammability, low burning velocity) 
refrigerant under the standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our assessment and 
listing decision (77 FR 47768; August 10, 2012) found that the overall 
risk, including the risk due to this mild flammability at elevated 
temperature, is not significantly greater than for other refrigerants 
or for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable.
    The toxicity of the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable is 
comparable to that of other alternatives that are acceptable in this 
end-use, with the exception of R-717 and R-514A. R-717 is of a higher 
toxicity than the other acceptable refrigerants and is classified as a 
B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). See section VI.A.4.a.iii.(b) of 
the proposed rule (81 FR 22843; April 18, 2016) for a discussion on the 
long history of use of R-717 and our original decision finding it 
acceptable in new centrifugal chillers. The use of R-717, also known as 
ammonia, and the risks it might present are controlled through industry 
standards, code requirements and other regulations. In the original 
SNAP rule, EPA noted ``[a]mmonia [R-717] has been used as a medium to 
low temperature refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 
100 years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a 
characteristic pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low 
cost. It is, however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a 
cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term 
exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia [R-717].'' (53 FR 13072; March 18, 
1994). In that rule, we found R-717 acceptable for use in centrifugal 
chillers, concluding that its overall risk to human health and the 
environment was not significantly greater than the other alternatives 
found acceptable. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the 
regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on such use as well as 
standard refrigeration practices, such as the adherence to ASHRAE 
Standard 15 and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration 
(IIAR) Standard 2,\117\ which are utilized by local authorities when 
setting their own building and safety requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration 
(IIAR) Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National Standard for 
Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia 
Mechanical Refrigerating Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R-514A is designed for use in low-pressure centrifugal chillers and 
has the same toxicity rating as HCFC-123, which has and continues to be 
used safely in such chillers. Because these refrigerants operate in 
low-pressure chillers only, any leaks are more likely to cause air to 
enter the chiller, rather than refrigerant to escape. Exposure is 
further reduced by requirements set forth in ASHRAE Standard 15, which 
is often cited in building codes. Specifically, Occupant Exposure 
Limits and Refrigerant Concentration Limits for B1 refrigerants--
specified in ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and mandated by ASHRAE Standard 15 
and building codes--are lower than for A1 refrigerants, and these 
limits must be observed in chiller operations. EPA's risk screen \118\ 
found that for a typical-size chiller using R-514A, even under 
conservative assumptions, the estimated 15-minute time-weighted average 
exposure would be well below (less than 12 percent of) the 
corresponding limit. The other acceptable alternatives listed 
previously that are included in ASHRAE 34 (2013) are classified as A 
(lower toxicity) refrigerants. For further information, including EPA's 
risk screens and risk assessments as well as information from the 
submitters of the substitutes, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers 
Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/
25.3) (OpteonTM XP30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, for new centrifugal chillers, because the risks other 
than GWP are not significantly different for the other available 
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and 
because the GWPs for the refrigerants we proposed to list as 
unacceptable are significantly higher and thus pose significantly 
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as 
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/
600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, 
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and 
THR-03.
    For new positive displacement chillers, other alternatives that are 
listed as acceptable and not subject to this action pose lower overall 
risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants we are 
listing as unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants for new positive 
displacement chillers include: HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, 
R-450A, R-513A, R-514A, R-717, R-744, and THR-02. In the proposed rule 
and SNAP Acceptability Determination 31, EPA provided information on 
the environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that 
are being found unacceptable compared with other available alternatives 
listed as acceptable (81 FR 22846; April 18, 2016 and 81 FR 32242-
32245; May 23, 2016). In addition, a technical support document \119\ 
that provides the Federal Register citations of actions in which we 
provide information on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, 
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives for new positive 
displacement chillers, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, 
may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new positive displacement chillers, the refrigerants that we 
are listing as unacceptable have insignificant ODPs and have GWPs 
ranging from about 920 to 3,990. As shown in Table 8, other 
alternatives that we are not listing as unacceptable in this end-use 
have GWPs ranging from zero to 630.

         Table 8--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Positive Displacement Chillers \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Refrigerants                 GWP                   ODP                    VOC           Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A,           0-630  0.........................  No...............  Acceptable.
 R-717, R-744.
HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-               7-560  0--Not public \3\.........  Yes \4\..........  Acceptable.
 514A, THR-02.
HFC-134a......................           1,430  0.........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, SP34E, THR-03.       920-1,410  0--Not public \3\.........  Yes\4\...........  Unacceptable.
HFC-227ea, R-407C, R-410A, R-      1,770-3,220  0.........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
 410B, R-421A.

[[Page 86817]]

 
KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/    1,810-3,250  0.........................  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
 1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/
 1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B,
 R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-
 434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44
 (2003 composition).
R-404A, R-507A................     3,920-3,990  0.........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    One of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action (THR-02), 
as well as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the 
listing from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290 
(propane), R-600 (butane), or other substances that are VOCs. These 
amounts are small and for this end-use are not expected to contribute 
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\120\ HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (constituents of R-514A) are considered 
VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA to exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from 
the definition of VOC. In the actions where EPA listed these 
refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded that none of the refrigerants 
in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone 
formation than other alternative refrigerants that are not VOCs or that 
are specifically excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA 
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs 
to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and 
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating 
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small 
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of 
the refrigerants that are subject to the status change for this end-
use.
    With the exception of HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, all other 
refrigerants that have been listed as acceptable, including those for 
which we are now changing the status to unacceptable, are not 
flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable at standard temperature and 
pressure using the standard test method ASTM E681; however, at higher 
temperatures it is mildly flammable. It is classified as a Class 2L 
(mild flammability, low burning velocity) refrigerant under the 
standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our assessment and listing decision (77 FR 
47768; August 10, 2012) found that the overall risk, including the risk 
due to this mild flammability at elevated temperature, is not 
significantly greater than for other refrigerants or for the 
refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable.
    R-717 (ammonia) is mildly flammable with a low flame speed; it is 
classified as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long 
history of use as a refrigerant in positive displacement chillers, 
especially in water-cooled screw chillers, and other applications. In 
our evaluation finding R-717 acceptable in this end-use, EPA noted 
``[a]mmonia [R-717] has been used as a medium to low temperature 
refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. 
Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a characteristic 
pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low cost. It is, 
however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a cumulative 
poison. Ammonia [R-717] may be used safely if existing OSHA and ASHRAE 
standards are followed'' (61 FR 47015).
    With the exception of R-717, the toxicity of the refrigerants we 
are listing as unacceptable is comparable to that of other alternatives 
that are acceptable in this end-use. R-717, a refrigerant we are not 
listing as unacceptable, is of a higher toxicity than some other 
refrigerants and is classified as a B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 
(2013). See section VI.A.4.b.iii.(b) of the proposed rule (81 FR 22847; 
April 18, 2016) for a discussion on the long history of use of R-717 
and our original decision finding it acceptable in new positive 
displacement chillers. However, as we provided in listing it as 
acceptable, if used consistent with OSHA regulations, as well as 
standard refrigeration practices, such as the adherence to ASHRAE 
Standard 15 and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration 
(IIAR) Standard 2, which are utilized by local authorities when setting 
their own building and safety requirements, it does not pose 
significantly greater risk than other available refrigerants in this 
end-use. For further information, including EPA's risk screens and risk 
assessments as well as information from the submitters of the 
substitutes, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663.
    In summary, for positive displacement chillers, because the risks 
other than GWP are not significantly different for the other available 
alternatives than for those we proposed to list as unacceptable, and 
because the GWPs for the refrigerants we proposed to list as 
unacceptable are significantly higher and thus pose significantly 
greater risk, we are listing the following refrigerants as 
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/
600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, 
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and 
THR-03.
ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military Marine Vessels and Human-Rated 
Spacecraft and Related Support Equipment
    EPA is establishing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued 
use of HFC-134a in centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for 
military marine vessels as of January 1, 2024. EPA is also establishing 
a narrowed use limit that would allow continued use of HFC-134a and R-
404A in centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for human-rated 
spacecraft and related support equipment applications as of January 1, 
2024. See section VI.A.4.a.iv and VI.A.4.b.iv of the proposed rule (81 
FR 22844; April 18, 2016) for a discussion of the reasons for these 
narrowed use limits. EPA responds to comments regarding the narrowed 
use limits in section VI.A.5.c.v.
    Under these narrowed use limits, the end users will need to 
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to 
performance or safety requirements, and they would also need to 
document the results of their

[[Page 86818]]

analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users are expected to undertake a 
thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise 
restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report the 
results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these 
results and retain them in their files for the purpose of demonstrating 
compliance. This information includes descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., 
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and 
projected time for switching.
iii. When will the status change?
    EPA proposed and is finalizing a status change date of January 1, 
2024, for new centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement 
chillers, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit. The 
status change date is based on comments and our understanding of the 
needs for industry standards, model codes, and adoption of those items 
to allow for a range of alternatives, including flammable alternatives, 
in both types of chillers addressed. As pointed out by AHRI and NRDC in 
their joint comment on the proposed rule, for chillers with 
alternatives not subject to a status change to be used ``effectively 
and safely, the appropriate mitigation must be developed, proven, and 
finally adopted by safety standards. Only then can states and 
municipalities adopt building codes reflecting the updated safety 
standards.'' The Agency understands that relevant industry standards 
and model building codes are likely to change in the 2017 to 2021 
timeframe, and that such changes will be a necessary step for the 
acceptable alternatives feasibly to be used in the chiller market. 
These standards and codes include ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL 60335-2-40, 
and the International Building Code (IBC). EPA also recognizes that 
even once standards and model building codes are changed, time will be 
required for locations to adopt such codes allowing for the use of 
chillers using the alternative refrigerants, many of which may not 
currently be allowed to be used based on existing codes. While some 
non-flammable, code-acceptable refrigerants are available for some of 
the chiller market, the use of other acceptable alternatives would 
require code changes or exceptions made by code officials. Comments 
indicated that there is a progression from the release of a model code 
until adoption by State authorities, and that the majority of States 
are currently using either the most recent (2015) model code or are 
only one cycle behind (2012). While EPA does not believe the status 
change date must occur after all such authorities have adopted a new 
model code, we are allowing a reasonable time to provide that 
opportunity where such code adoption would facilitate the introduction 
of chillers with alternative refrigerants. Comments also indicate that, 
if the appropriate codes are not adopted, there are alternative means 
and measures that may be taken to allow the use of alternatives 
otherwise not allowed. A change of status date of January 1, 2024, is 
necessary to provide an expeditious yet reasonable time for this 
process to occur. The status change date is also necessary to allow 
continued development of designs of new centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers using an acceptable alternative, covering the 
wide range of capacity and design types (low/medium pressure, indoor/
outdoor, etc.) that exist in the market, and allow those chillers to be 
tested and certified. EPA is aware that some equipment has been 
introduced with acceptable alternatives, as discussed above in section 
VI.A.5.a.ii, and that additional research and development is underway 
with these and other possible alternatives. EPA responds to comments 
regarding the status change date in section VI.A.5.c.ii.
    Some commenters suggested an earlier date for all or parts of the 
centrifugal and positive displacement chiller market, suggesting status 
change dates as early as 2019. While EPA noted that multiple chillers 
with alternative refrigerants are already available on the market now, 
and we expect more to become so by that date, we did not find evidence 
that a significant portion of the chiller market could transition at an 
earlier date than the date we are finalizing. Further, EPA did not 
receive enough technical detail to support dividing the centrifugal 
chiller end-use or the positive displacement chiller end-use so that 
different change of status dates could apply to different portions of 
the end-uses.
    Commenters who suggested a later status change date had concerns 
regarding their ability to maintain current energy efficiency levels 
with alternative refrigerants. The data provided by commenters, 
however, showed only minor theoretical losses of efficiency for some 
alternatives, up to about four percent. These commenters suggested more 
time is needed to recover these losses by redesigning and recertifying 
centrifugal chillers. These losses are considered small and only 
pertain to ``drop-in'' conditions; it is expected that any losses can 
be recovered by designing new chillers to utilize those refrigerants, 
as commenters indicate they expect to do. Furthermore, several 
alternatives were found to exceed current efficiency levels even in 
these theoretical conditions. While some commenters provided a general 
description of the steps that must be taken in this redesign process, 
none provided a detailed timeline of how long each step would take and 
how multiple models can be redesigned in parallel during the proposed 
timeframe. Therefore, we disagree that efficiency concerns would 
support a later change of status date.
    Commenters who suggested a later status change date were also 
concerned about the need to update industry standards and building 
codes, and adoption of those codes, specifically for flammable 
alternatives. For centrifugal chillers, they stated such changes must 
take place for HFO-1234ze(E), a mildly flammable A2L refrigerant, to be 
used. They also identified that refrigerant and several other A2L 
refrigerants for positive displacement chillers, and likewise indicated 
that standards and codes actions hindered the availability of chillers 
with those alternatives. EPA found several examples where acceptable 
alternatives have been used in both centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers, and received information that indicates that 
industry standards are expected to be updated as early as 2017 and that 
model building codes would be updated possibly in the 2018 cycle or 
most likely the 2021 cycle. By establishing a 2024 status change, we 
allow time for adoption of those model codes by States and other 
jurisdictional authorities. In addition, commenters noted that there 
are other alternative means and measures by which the use of a 
flammable refrigerant, if so chosen by the manufacturer, in a 
centrifugal or positive displacement chiller may be permitted, even if 
that refrigerant were not otherwise allowed under a particular State or 
locality's existing code requirements.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in the refrigerants industry. Comments addressed 
EPA's proposed status change date of January 1, 2024, for new 
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers. Some 
commenters, including Chemours, EIA, Honeywell, and Ingersoll Rand

[[Page 86819]]

supported EPA's proposed status change date. These commenters 
identified a range of potential alternatives but generally agreed that 
new centrifugal chillers using these alternatives needed some time to 
be brought to the market. Other commenters opposed the proposed status 
changes or suggested different change of status dates from the one EPA 
proposed, such as 2021 and 2025. Other comments we received related to 
energy efficiency, industry standards and codes, and the narrowed use 
limits for military and spacecraft uses.
    Commenters included Boeing, Eastman Chemical Company, Honeywell, 
Chemours, Johnson Controls, Ingersoll Rand, UTC, PSEG Services 
Corporation, Arkema, the Alliance, National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM), AHRI, EIA, NRDC, IGSD, NASA, and DoD.
    As stated above, EPA received many comments discussing ``chillers'' 
or ``HFC-134a alternatives'' that did not specify whether the comments 
applied specifically to centrifugal chillers, positive displacement 
chillers, or both. We have grouped comments together and responded to 
the issues raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a 
separate Response to Comments document which is included in the docket 
for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Our responses should be 
considered as equally applicable to both end-uses unless otherwise 
specified.
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
    Comment: Eastman requested that EPA clarify whether the status 
changes under the chiller end-uses apply to the IPR end-use. Eastman 
pointed out that since the inception of the SNAP program, EPA has 
separated these into different end-uses.
    Response: EPA confirms that this action will change the status of 
refrigerants for new positive displacement chillers and new centrifugal 
chillers and does not affect refrigerants listed under the separate IPR 
end-use.
    Comment: Eastman raised concerns about retrofits to existing 
equipment, specifically for ``any of these systems with remaining 
useful life [that] are scheduled for retrofits due to previous phase-
outs of refrigerants such as R-22,'' and pointed out issues related to 
using certain refrigerants listed as acceptable for the chiller end-
uses ``to replace the one the [IPR] system was originally designed to 
use.'' PSEG submitted similar comments, requesting that EPA ``clarify 
its intent that the prohibition of HFC-134a in chillers applies to new 
chillers installed on or after January 1, 2024,'' and did not require 
``units that are newly installed with HFC-134a after the final rule 
becomes effective, but prior to January 1, 2024, to retrofit those 
`existing' units by January 1, 2024.'' PSEG stated that ``there are few 
viable zero or low GWP refrigerants available for use in HFC-134a large 
tonnage equipment'' and that highly flammable refrigerants and both R-
717 and R-744 are not viable for nuclear applications, noting that 
``the equipment must be designed specifically for the gas.''
    Response: The status changes to the centrifugal and positive 
displacement chiller end-uses in this rule apply to ``new'' equipment 
installed on or after the status change date of January 1, 2024. EPA 
has historically issued separate decisions under the SNAP program for 
new equipment in a given end-use and retrofit (i.e., the replacement of 
the refrigerant with an alternate refrigerant) in the same end-use. 
This action changes the status of refrigerants for new chillers created 
on or after the status change date; it does not change the status of 
refrigerants currently acceptable for retrofitting chillers. Thus, 
concerns about retrofitting ``HFC-134a'' equipment are not pertinent 
for this action.
    Comment: EIA supported EPA's proposal to change the status of high-
GWP refrigerants to unacceptable for centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers, mentioning specifically refrigerants HFC-134a, 
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A and R-507A. Chemours also supported EPA's 
proposed status changes for both chiller end-uses, and identified 
several alternatives and what they would replace, including R-513A 
(HFC-134a replacement), R-452B (R-410A replacement), R-449A (R-404A 
replacement) and HFO-1234yf (HFC-134a replacement).
    Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the 
proposed rule. Regarding the alternatives identified by Chemours, EPA 
agrees that R-513A is an acceptable alternative for centrifugal and 
positive displacement chillers. EPA has received submissions for R-449A 
and R-452B for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers and 
the Agency is reviewing them for these and other end-uses. We have not 
received a submission specifically for HFO-1234yf in chillers.
    Comment: UTC provided information regarding various refrigerants 
that are listed as acceptable or that may be under research for use in 
centrifugal chillers, specifically HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-450A, R-
513A, R-452B, R-718, R-744, R-1233zd(E) and R-515A. They likewise 
provided information on the first six of these refrigerants in positive 
displacement chillers. Additional information regarding the compressor 
displacement to utilize these alternatives was also provided. UTC noted 
the flammability of R-290 and felt that R-718 and R-744 ``do not 
provide a long-term solution or require additional work to make such 
refrigerants feasible in chillers.'' UTC provided information regarding 
the application and efficiency of the other refrigerants and said some 
of these that could be used ``are short-term, but less efficient'' 
options. They also indicated others are ``longer-term,'' and identified 
HFO-1234ze(E) as a specific example but also noted its flammability. 
They stated that R-452B was not a viable option to replace HFC-134a but 
did indicate it was under consideration as one of several R-410A 
alternatives, all of which are flammable.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment to apply to both centrifugal 
and positive displacement chillers. EPA thanks the commenter for this 
information. This information shows that much is known about these 
refrigerants and how they could be employed in chillers. UTC indicates 
a desire to transition to what it considered ``longer-term'' solutions, 
but did not provide adequate information to indicate why their 
recommended status change date of January 1, 2025, would provide such 
time but the proposed status change date of January 1, 2024, would not. 
As discussed in section VI.A.5.b.iii above, EPA has established a 
change of status date that considers the need for standards and model 
codes to change to incorporate requirements for flammable refrigerants 
as well as additional time for States and localities to adopt such 
codes as part of their requirements.
    Comment: UTC indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) is flammable and 
therefore mitigation is required and ``appropriate safety standards and 
approved building codes must be in place before it can be used.'' 
Comments submitted as CBI indicate that a chiller using HFO-1234ze(E) 
has been introduced in Europe and that the potential flammability of 
the refrigerant was addressed through added mitigation requirements 
sufficient for A2 (and hence A2L) refrigerants. As noted in section 
VI.A.5.a.iii above, Honeywell stated that ``[s]everal manufacturers 
currently offer high-efficiency chillers, air-cooled (outdoor) and 
water-cooled (indoor), using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes ranging from tens 
of tons to hundreds of tons'' and listed some examples, including some 
centrifugal chillers and some positive displacement chillers.

[[Page 86820]]

    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. This information 
indicates that manufacturers and installers have been successful in 
introducing chillers with alternative flammable refrigerants in some 
instances, and that building codes allow for such installations under 
certain circumstances. However, as discussed in section VI.A.5.b.iii 
above, EPA agrees that for flammable refrigerants to become more widely 
used across the multiple applications and configurations where 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers are deployed, standards 
and model codes need to be revised and the States and localities must 
adopt such codes. Our status change date of January 1, 2024, provides 
the time necessary for this to occur. As discussed above in section 
VI.A.5.a.iii, multiple companies have introduced chillers using HFO-
1234ze(E). Comments indicate that this refrigerant is already being 
employed in chillers and that steps to address the flammability of the 
refrigerant in some applications are known. Thus, this refrigerant is 
one of the many options that can be utilized by manufacturers to 
develop chillers using acceptable refrigerants by the January 1, 2024, 
status change date. In addition to HFO-1234ze(E), other flammable 
refrigerants have been used, especially in positive displacement 
chillers. For instance, in the proposed rule (81 FR 22847; April 18, 
2016), EPA noted that ``R-717 has a long history of use as a 
refrigerant in positive displacement chillers, especially in water-
cooled screw chillers, and other applications.''
    Comment: Honeywell stated that ``HFO-1233zd(E), has a GWP of one, 
is non-flammable and more energy efficient than HFC-134a, and chillers 
utilizing HFO-1233zd(E) are available from at least three 
manufacturers,'' identifying Trane (a brand of Ingersoll Rand), Carrier 
(a brand of UTC), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information regarding 
R-1233zd(E). The proposed rule (81 FR 22842; April 18, 2016) noted that 
one manufacturer had introduced a chiller using this refrigerant.\121\ 
That same company now offers all of their large tonnage low-pressure 
centrifugal chillers using this refrigerant.\122\ As Honeywell notes, 
and as we cite in section VI.A.5.a.iii above, other manufacturers have 
also produced centrifugal chillers using R-1233zd(E). These will serve 
part of the chiller market but do not satisfy the full market, for 
instance where a smaller tonnage, positive displacement chiller is 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Cooling Post, 2014. ``Trane first with 1233zd chiller.'' 
June 30, 2014. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd-chiller/.
    \122\ Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal 
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and 
Canada.'' June 15, 2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Ingersoll Rand stated that they will have small tonnage 
low-pressure centrifugal chillers under their Trane brand using R-514A 
available in 2017.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this comment indicating the 
development of small tonnage low-pressure centrifugal chillers using R-
514A, which we cite in section VI.A.5.a.iii.
    Comment: EIA suggested that EPA ``signal the likelihood'' of 
finding alternatives with GWPs above 600 unacceptable, including R-450A 
and R-513A.
    Response: EPA cannot, at this time, project what actions it may 
take in the future. Moreover, any proposal to change the status of R-
450A and R-513A in the chiller end-uses would need to occur through a 
separate notice and comment rulemaking in which EPA performs a full 
comparative assessment using the SNAP criteria.
ii. Change of Status Date
    Comment: Honeywell supported a January 1, 2024, status change date 
for chillers but felt that certain types could transition sooner. They 
noted that the discussion regarding the need for building codes to 
change to accept 2L flammable refrigerants was most applicable to 
water-cooled indoor chiller installations and that ``for the most part 
this issue does not impact the installation of air-cooled chillers that 
are installed outdoors.'' Based on that, Honeywell believed that EPA 
could adopt an earlier transition date for air-cooled (outdoor) 
chillers. EIA suggested a staged transition with a change of status 
date of January 1, 2019, for air-cooled chillers and January 1, 2021, 
for water-cooled chillers. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
recommended that all chillers be subject to a January 1, 2021, status 
change date. Arkema suggested a 2021 transition date for R-407A, R-
407B, R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, and R-407F.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. The commenters 
supporting one or more earlier change of status dates for all or 
portions of the chiller end use did not provide enough technical detail 
to conclude that such dates are achievable for the chillers that would 
be subject to such dates. Further, EPA did not receive enough 
information regarding how extensive code changes would (or would not) 
be specifically for air-cooled outdoor chillers and thus we do not 
believe that an earlier status change date for that portion of the 
chiller market as suggested by Honeywell and EIA is supported. EPA 
notes that nonflammable (A1) and flammable (A2L and B2L) alternatives 
are acceptable for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers.
    We also recognize that it is important under the SNAP program to 
not limit end users to a single choice. EPA has identified several 
alternatives that are acceptable for centrifugal chillers and likewise 
positive displacement chillers. By establishing the same change of 
status date for all chillers, manufacturers will be able to choose from 
the full list of acceptable alternatives the refrigerant(s) and chiller 
type(s) that best meet their specific needs, and customers will be able 
to apply the particular type(s) of chillers using the particular 
acceptable alternative that best meet their needs. Individual 
manufacturers may determine for themselves which alternative(s) to use 
in their particular equipment and given the variety of alternatives 
available there may not be a single ``widely-accepted'' replacement, 
even for a specific type of chiller; there may be several refrigerants 
and chiller types competing in the market. For additional comments 
regarding building codes and standards, please see section VI.A.c.iv.
    Comment: UTC argued for a status change date no earlier than 
January 1, 2025. One factor that they cited was that HFO-1234ze(E) ``is 
a new HFO.'' Regarding this chemical, UTC stated that it has 
``approximately equal performance'' to HFC-134a and indicated that 
changes to equipment designs are required to use it. UTC also stated 
that ``typical development projects require 2-3 years to complete,'' 
but indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) ``require[s] major redesign work.'' 
Commenting on positive displacement chillers, EIA stated that ``[t]he 
first HFO-1234ze chillers were installed back in 2011 and production 
uptake of HFO-1234ze chillers has been increasing rapidly'' noting two 
major manufacturers--Carrier (a brand of UTC) and Trane (a brand of 
Ingersoll Rand)--using that refrigerant in chillers.

[[Page 86821]]

    Response: EPA interprets UTC's comment as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers while EIA's comment was 
specific to positive displacement chillers. HFO-1234ze(E) is not a 
``new'' refrigerant--it was added to ASHRAE Standard 34-2010 via 
addendum i, which was approved by the ASHRAE Standards Committee on 
June 25, 2011, by the ASHRAE Board of Directors on June 29, 2011, and 
by the ANSI on June 30, 2011. EPA listed it acceptable for centrifugal 
and positive displacement chillers on August 10, 2012. As discussed 
previously in section VI.A.5.b.iii and as EIA noted, multiple companies 
have utilized HFO-1234ze(E) in chillers to date. Finally, we note that 
Carrier Corporation, a brand of UTC, has at least six HFO-1234ze(E) 
chiller installations in Switzerland.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for 
global chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is 
accessible at http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: UTC, Johnson Controls and AHRI stated that any status 
change date earlier than January 1, 2025, would not provide the time 
necessary to transition to alternatives that remain acceptable. UTC 
stated that ``EPA must take into account certain properties, including 
flammability, for refrigerants for which EPA does not propose to change 
status'' (emphasis in the original), such as HFO-1234ze(E), R-
1233zd(E), R-450A and R-513A. UTC commented that the substitutes that 
remain acceptable for centrifugal chillers and for positive 
displacement chillers currently utilizing HFC-134a are not ``drop-in'' 
refrigerants and will require substantial equipment redesign to account 
for displacement changes and changes in cycle efficiency and heat 
transfer. For positive displacement chillers currently utilizing R-
410A, UTC and Johnson Controls said system changes must be made for A2L 
refrigerants, and concluded that all the alternatives being 
investigated for such use are or would be classified as A2L. UTC 
provided further information on the steps required during redesign. 
These included steps for ``each chiller type'' as well as additional 
steps for 2L flammable refrigerants. To redesign equipment, UTC said 
one necessary step was the development of oils and new materials to be 
used in the new equipment. They also indicated that new components and 
overall systems would need to be requalified by test laboratories. More 
generally, UTC indicated that ``different equipment redesign, 
requalification and equipment sensor and alarms will be required along 
with state and local adoption of building and fire code changes'' to 
transition positive displacement chillers.
    UTC said that typical development projects would require two to 
three years to complete but also indicated that this time frame could 
be delayed due to the availability of manufacturer and test labs for 
certification, Johnson Controls indicated a project duration of two to 
nine years for low-pressure and medium-pressure chillers. AHRI also 
estimated it would take two to nine years to commercialize including 
time to reengineer and re-optimize chillers to use alternative 
refrigerants. Ingersoll Rand noted their commitment to transition its 
entire chiller portfolio, including positive displacement screw and 
scroll chillers, before the end of 2018.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying (regarding the 
development process) to both centrifugal and positive displacement 
chillers. Although EPA prefers not to use the term ``drop-in,'' it is 
sometimes used by various parties to refer to the circumstance where 
one refrigerant can be used in place of another without any 
modification to the relevant piece of refrigeration equipment. EPA 
recognizes that in many cases designs will need to be modified to use 
different refrigerants. This is expected and was evidenced when 
centrifugal chillers transitioned from CFC-11 and CFC-12 to HCFC-123 
and HFC-134a and when positive displacement chillers transitioned from 
CFC-12 and HCFC-22 to HFC-134a, R-407C and R-410A. Past experiences 
show that such redesigns offer the opportunity for manufacturers to 
integrate other changes to improve performance of their products and 
could offer them competitive advantages in the market. EPA realizes 
that the degree of design changes may vary by the refrigerant chosen 
and more so from decisions by the manufacturers in adopting designs for 
those refrigerants and including other design changes during the 
process.
    The information from these commenters did not provide sufficient 
detail to determine the time it would take to transition all chillers 
to acceptable alternatives to serve its current market. For instance, 
UTC did not indicate whether the two to three year product development 
timeframe applied to just one or multiple products, and if the latter, 
whether those development projects could overlap and occur 
simultaneously. Johnson Controls and AHRI did not address these 
situations either. However, the January 1, 2024, change of status date 
for both centrifugal and positive displacement chillers that EPA is 
establishing in the final rule should provide sufficient time for the 
activities described by the commenters to occur in order to meet that 
date.
    Comment: In addition to the argument for a change of status date no 
earlier than January 1, 2025, UTC suggested that HFC-134a in chillers 
should remain acceptable until states and localities adopted the 
``relevant building, fire and mechanical codes that may be necessary.'' 
The commenter suggested a narrowed use limit could apply. UTC also 
provided a table indicating the number of states adopting various 
editions of the IBC, the International Fire Code, and the International 
Mechanical Code. UTC indicated a desire for ``regulatory certainty'' 
and an avoidance of ``balkanization of the market.''
    Response: UTC did not indicate specifically which codes, and 
specifically which provisions in any codes, would need to be modified. 
Although EPA recognizes that in general standards and model codes need 
to be developed to allow for the use of A2L refrigerants, and that 
States and localities need to adopt those model codes or similar 
requirements, it is not reasonable to condition the entire market by 
such actions. As stated above in section VI.A.5.b.iii, a status change 
date of January 1, 2024, provides a reasonable amount of time for these 
actions to take place for most if not all States and localities. Where 
such actions have not fully occurred, manufacturers have the option to 
offer nonflammable refrigerants for some chiller types, and alternative 
means and methods exist to allow for the use of A2L refrigerants if 
needed.
    Further, as the table of approvals provided showed, various states 
are adopting different cycles of codes, some dating back to 2003 and 
others adopting the latest 2015 codes. In section VI.A.5.c.iv below, 
EPA points to the concerted effort by DOE, AHRI, and ASHRAE to fund 
vital research that will establish a more robust fact base about the 
properties and uses of flammable refrigerants. The results from this 
work will help provide the technical knowledge needed to facilitate and 
accelerate the safe use of flammable refrigerants. EPA finds that 
conditioning a status change on code adoption would not only be 
unnecessary, but would create the ``balkanization'' or patchwork of 
regulations that UTC said it wanted to avoid.
    Comment: AHRI and NRDC jointly stated that ``[t]he forthcoming 
redesign

[[Page 86822]]

will require modification not only to the equipment itself, but also to 
the manufacturing environment, servicing practices and shipping 
logistics, and most importantly, to the equipment rooms and buildings 
in which these equipment may be installed.'' AHRI and NRDC recommended 
a January 1, 2025, change of status date to allow time for these 
modifications to occur.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. As discussed in the 
previous response, EPA recognizes that equipment modification and 
redesigns will be required to use alternatives. The commenters did not 
indicate specifically why the other modifications were required, did 
not provide any detail regarding the time needed for the identified 
modifications, whether the various steps could be addressed in parallel 
or only one after the other in series and why these steps cannot take 
place in time to meet a January 1, 2024, change of status date. Thus, 
these comments do not support a claim that the change of status date 
should be January 1, 2025, instead of January 1, 2024, for either 
centrifugal or positive displacement chillers.
    Comment: Arguing for a January 1, 2025, status change date, Johnson 
Controls stated that the alternatives not subject to status change are 
not ``drop-ins'' for HCFC-123 in low-pressure centrifugal chillers and 
likewise that to transition HFC-134a chillers to low-pressure 
alternatives would require redesign of heat exchangers and compressors 
and take two to nine years or longer.
    Response: As noted above, although EPA prefers not to use the term 
``drop-in,'' it is sometimes used by various parties to refer to the 
circumstance where one refrigerant can be used in place of another 
without any modification to the relevant piece of refrigeration 
equipment. We recognize that manufacturers typically redesign products 
to varying extents when transitioning refrigerants in most cases to 
address the unique properties of the new refrigerant that will be used. 
As an initial matter, EPA's change of status rule does not limit 
manufacturers currently using HFC-134a to convert to low-pressure 
alternatives. Higher-pressure alternatives that are not subject to 
status change may also be considered, including HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A 
and R-513A. In addition, manufacturers may develop and submit to SNAP 
other alternatives for evaluation. Regardless, the commenter has 
suggested a wide timeframe for the time in which it would take 
manufacturers to convert equipment, but has provided no detail as to 
the actual expected timeframe. We note that a January 1, 2024, change 
of status date will provide the manufacturer slightly more than seven 
years in which to achieve a conversion, which is on the later side of 
the time they suggest might be needed. In addition, we note that the 
commenter has already announced that the centrifugal and screw chillers 
they offer, originally designed for HFC-134a, are compatible with R-
513A, which is not subject to the status change in this action.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances 
Environmental Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with 
Low GWP Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: AHRI stated that the flammability of new refrigerants will 
require safety upgrades for manufacturing and reclamation facilities. 
AHRI also indicated that transition to flammable refrigerants involves 
capital investments that need to be planned well in advance.
    Response: AHRI did not provide any specific information on the time 
required to prepare these facilities for flammable refrigerants and how 
that might affect the proposed change of status date. We note that 
neither of the two certified reclaimers that commented on the proposed 
rule indicated that safety upgrades were needed and that a later change 
of status date should be established to allow for such upgrades.
    Comment: Johnson Controls stated that the AHRI/NRDC proposal called 
for a tremendously aggressive transition away from HFCs in just over 
eight years and compared that time period to what they indicated was 
over 20 years to transition chillers from CFCs and HCFCs. They stated 
that after more than 25 years from the signing of the Montreal 
Protocol, there are manufacturers still using HCFCs in chillers. AHRI 
also stated that the last refrigerant transition from ODS has taken 20 
years and is still in process.
    Response: EPA disagrees that a 2024 status change date is overly 
aggressive or that the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs provides 
support that an over seven-year period for moving away from the use of 
many HFCs and HFC blends is insufficient. It is important to note that 
the transition away from CFCs and HCFCs in the earlier years was due to 
a phasedown, not a phaseout, of CFCs. While based on later regulations 
CFCs were phased out of production in 1995, a phaseout in production of 
HCFCs has only more recently started. Thus, during the first 15 years 
of the SNAP program, there was no obligation and no incentive for 
manufacturers to transition from HCFCs. Therefore, the pace of 
transition away from HCFCs does not reflect the time needed to 
transition away from the substitutes subject to the change of status. 
As provided in more detail in section VI.A.5.b.iii, we evaluated the 
steps it would take for manufacturers to transition chillers away from 
the substitutes that we are changing the listing status to 
unacceptability, examining the technical challenges for that transition 
and considering the use of flammable alternatives and the related need 
for changes to industry standards and model building codes and the 
adoption of those codes. For the reasons provided there, we have 
determined that January 1, 2024, is a reasonable, but expeditious date 
for such a transition.
    Comment: The Alliance asked EPA to explain in more detail what 
technical analysis or timelines would be needed to justify a change of 
status later than our lead proposal of January 1, 2024.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA has not established 
a specific list of items that are needed to justify a later change of 
status date. In establishing a change of status date, EPA examined the 
technical challenges in order to determine a reasonable, but 
expeditious change of status date. Thus, to support a later change of 
status date, EPA would need additional information indicating that the 
information it relied on to support a January 1, 2024, change of status 
date was flawed and that additional time was needed to meet the 
technical challenges of a transition.
    Comment: Arkema provided a list of steps needed for ``product line 
development'' including ``researching options, risk assessment, 
analyzing existing manufacturing capabilities, working with component 
suppliers, building test units, testing beta units, updating 
manufacturing processes (including employee training), building pre-
production units, field testing, completing the customer approval 
process, phasing in production, disposing of trapped inventory, and 
training installation and maintenance personnel'' and ensuring 
``products conform to local building codes.'' For new chillers 
specifically, Arkema suggested a change of status date of 2025 for HFC-
134a and R-410A, stating as their ``[r]ationale'' that ``HFC-134a is 
used in screw and centrifugal chillers;

[[Page 86823]]

[R-]410A is used in smaller chillers, especially scroll chillers.''
    Response: EPA interprets this comment as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the 
commenter's indication of which types of chillers HFC-134a and R-410A 
are currently used, but this does not provide any rationale for their 
proposed change of status date for these refrigerants. Further, the 
commenter did not provide any indication of how the product line 
development tasks apply specifically to chillers and how they relate to 
the change of status date proposed. The commenter did not provide any 
justification to support a 2025 status change date instead of a change 
of status date of January 1, 2024.
iii. Energy Efficiency
    Comment: Information submitted and claimed as CBI compared the full 
load efficiency and the integrated part-load value (IPLV), another 
measure of efficiency, of several alternatives relative to HFC-134a. 
Similar information was included for eight alternatives relative to R-
410A. Given the number of alternatives shown, this information appears 
to be based on theoretical calculations (e.g. ``cycle calculations'') 
or tests of non-optimized equipment rather than a sample of equipment 
in operation. The estimates showed that R-450A, R-513A, and R-515A had 
lower full load efficiencies than HFC-134a (up to 3.3 percent below) 
and that R-1233zd(E) and HFO-1234ze(E) had higher full load 
efficiencies and IPLVs than HFC-134a (up to 3.1 percent above). The 
information provided and claimed as CBI also indicated that some 
refrigerants have better IPLVs (up to 2.3 percent higher) and some have 
worse IPLVs (up to 2.5 percent lower) than HFC-134a in chillers. Of the 
eight alternatives compared to R-410A, including for example HFC-32 and 
R-452B, seven had higher IPLVs (up to 0.7 percent) and all eight had 
higher full load efficiencies (up to 3.2 percent).
    UTC stated that ``the primary environmental impact (~95 percent) of 
HVAC systems stems from the electric power needed to operate them, not 
from refrigerant leaks (which constitute about five percent of the 
overall impact).'' Johnson Controls and AHRI both stated that 98 
percent of the CO2-equivalent emissions from chillers are 
the result of the power. Johnson Controls claimed that medium-pressure 
options to replace HFC-134a in chillers are two to four percent less 
efficient in ``drop-in'' conditions while AHRI stated that some 
acceptable alternatives ``may be two to three percent less efficient.'' 
Johnson Controls stated that ``the minimum efficiency of chillers is 
mandated'' and indicated that it is unacceptable to offer lower-
efficiency equipment to their customers. They suggested that any loss 
in efficiency might be possibly regained by increasing the surface area 
of the heat exchangers and from modifying the aerodynamics of 
compressors.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. As discussed in section 
VII.D.3 below, energy efficiency is not a specific criterion under 
SNAP; however, manufactures indicated the desire to maintain or improve 
efficiency with alternative refrigerants, and EPA is supportive of that 
as well. The information provided shows that some options offer better 
energy efficiency than refrigerants such as HFC-134a and R-410A 
currently used in many chillers.
    While we agree with the commenters who suggest that certain 
refrigerants may have a lower energy efficiency if used as ``drop-
ins,'' (i.e., without equipment modification), energy efficiency could 
be addressed, as some commenters recognize, by adjusting design. The 
change of status date allows time for such redesign to occur.
    It is unclear what the commenter is referencing when it states that 
``minimum efficiency of chillers is mandated.'' EPA does not mandate 
energy efficiency and, as we noted in the proposal (81 FR 22845; April 
18, 2016), there are no specific DOE requirements for minimum energy 
efficiency for chillers apart from those used in federal government-
owned buildings.\125\ It is reasonable to assume that Johnson Controls' 
line of ``over 40 chiller product families'' already comes with varying 
degrees of energy efficiency and that as they move forward to develop 
systems that comply with the status change there will still be a range 
of energy efficient products available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ EPA stated in section VI.A.4.a.vi of the proposed rule (81 
FR 22845; April 18, 2016) that DOE has established efficiency 
requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2010, for 
chillers used in federal buildings and provided our understanding of 
that standard. Since that time, EPA has become aware that such 
chiller efficiency requirements are now based on the 2013 version of 
that standard (80 FR 68749; November 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also addresses energy efficiency in section VII.D.3 in this 
action and in sections V.B.6.a, V.C.7, V.D.3.c, and VII.C.3 of the 
preamble to the July 2015 rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015).
    Comment: UTC indicated generally that while it would not face any 
code barriers, ``an A1 [i.e., nonflammable] refrigerant may result in 
reduced energy efficiency that may limit customer demand and drive 
decisions to repair, and not replace, existing equipment.''
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA recognizes that the 
energy efficiency is a significant factor when choosing equipment. We 
also recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of 
equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the 
particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant 
possesses. We also do not believe that the evidence supports that the 
change of status will result in end users needing to choose lower 
efficiency equipment. As detailed in the previous comment and response, 
the substitutes that will remain available provide both higher and 
lower energy efficiencies than HFC-134a. Also, as noted by the 
commenter in the previous comment and response, there are strategies 
that manufacturers may pursue to mitigate against any loses in energy 
efficiency.
    With respect to UTC's comment that reduced energy efficiency may 
drive decisions to repair rather than replace existing equipment, EPA 
does not dictate through the SNAP program when a chiller must be 
replaced rather than repaired. Instead, EPA allows the user to 
determine when to repair and when to replace their system.
iv. Industry Standards and Codes
    Comment: UTC stated that flammability is ``a new risk for comfort 
cooling'' and that ``[s]afety cannot be compromised by setting 
requirements ahead of the [ASHRAE] and [UL] standards.'' UTC, AHRI, and 
Johnson Controls indicated that these standards would need to change to 
allow for the safe use of alternatives, and that such changes would 
only be a first step in that process. After that, model building codes 
would need to incorporate the revised standards and then State and 
local jurisdictions would adopt those codes, thereby making the use of 
new alternatives viable in those locations. Commenters noted that HFO-
1234ze(E) is flammable and UTC listed eight options under consideration 
to replace R-410A in positive displacement chillers and stated that 
``[a]ll of these refrigerants are A2L and will require and [sic] update 
of state and local codes.'' AHRI and NRDC jointly said ``[m]any 
promising alternative refrigerants are mildly flammable (especially for 
R-410A) and currently restricted under product safety standards and 
building codes.'' The Alliance indicated ``[t]here has been notable 
progress this year on the

[[Page 86824]]

challenge of incorporating the use of mildly flammable and flammable 
low-GWP alternatives into the relevant codes and standards.'' Ingersoll 
Rand stated that ``ASHRAE 15 and UL 60335-2-40 are being updated to 
accommodate A2L refrigerants in chillers and are on track to be 
complete by the end of 2017'' while EIA said ``ASHRAE Standards and 
International Code Council (ICC) code changes required for adopting A2L 
refrigerants . . . are already proposed and are expected to be 
completed by 2018.'' AHRI pointed to an ``unprecedented effort''--a 
$5.2 million program jointly funded by AHRI, ASHRAE and DOE--to 
undertake independent research to allow flammable refrigerants to be 
used safely in air conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. These comments 
indicate that the process of updating standards for flammable 
refrigerants is underway and expected to be completed shortly. The 
results of this research announced by DOE, ASHRAE, and AHRI will 
immediately be transmitted to the committees responsible for ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 15-2013, ``Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems,'' 
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, ``Designation and Safety 
Classification of Refrigerants,'' with a goal of using the results to 
update the standards as soon as possible, subject to full compliance 
with the ANSI consensus process. EPA is encouraged by this $5.2 million 
program as part of the ongoing global effort to identify appropriate 
climate-friendly alternatives and the announcement that another 
$500,000 has been pledged for this work.\126\ While EPA acknowledges 
that additional time may be needed to adopt such standards in codes, or 
provide other means for approval of the use of chillers with flammable 
refrigerants by authorities having jurisdiction, such time is provided 
through our January 1, 2024, status change date. Furthermore, EPA has 
noted that nonflammable alternatives are available for both centrifugal 
and positive displacement chillers, especially for designs currently 
using HCFC-123 or HFC-134a. While commenters stated that the 
alternatives for positive displacement chillers currently using R-
410A--such as those listed by UTC--are flammable, this does not 
preclude the possibility of designing a chiller using a nonflammable 
alternative nor as mentioned the revision of standards to allow the use 
of flammable refrigerants, the incorporation of those standards into 
model building codes, and the adoption of these building codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ EPA, 2016c. A ``Cool'' Way to Combat Climate Change under 
the Montreal Protocol. July 20, 2016. Available online at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/07/a-cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: AHRI and NRDC maintained that ``appropriate mitigation 
must be developed, proven, and finally adopted by safety standards'' 
before they can be used. They said that ``product and safety standards 
will not be updated until 2018 at the earliest'' and that model 
building codes reflecting those updates were expected in 2021. NAM and 
UTC likewise indicated that state and local adoption of building and 
fire codes was necessary for chillers to use 2L refrigerants, including 
HFO-1234ze(E) and alternatives for R-410A positive displacement 
chillers. UTC provided an undated table that showed the number of 
states that had adopted various editions (from 2003 to 2015) of three 
different codes. UTC said the process for adoption typically takes 8-10 
years. They stated that they ``do not expect model codes to be 
completely updated until 2021.'' Johnson Controls and AHRI also 
provided information on code adoption by states. AHRI claimed that 
historically it has taken on average up to 10 years to adopt updated 
building codes and listed the four states using the 2006 or older IBC. 
AHRI stated that a January 1, 2025, transition date is reasonable 
``based on the assumption that the HVAC industry would work together 
with the Federal government to accelerate the adoption of the standards 
and codes necessary to allow for commercialization of the products.'' A 
private citizen pointed out that codes produced by the ICC, including 
the IBC, ``allows the jurisdiction to accept new methods and materials, 
so long as that acceptance doesn't reduce the level of safety provided 
by a code compliant material or method.'' This would indicate that a 
manufacturer or other interested party could develop chillers using 
those refrigerants and provide additional risk mitigation techniques 
that could then be deemed as acceptable under the codes, even if the 
codes did not specifically address the requirements to use 2L 
refrigerants in such equipment. The citizen indicated that a subsidiary 
company to the ICC can provide manufacturers with reports of its 
assessment of such new products or methods, and that manufacturers in 
turn can share that report with jurisdictions to demonstrate the 
product meets the intent of the code. This would then allow the use of 
that chiller, and possibly others, using 2L refrigerants in that 
particular jurisdiction. Finally, the citizen noted two examples where 
code changes are being undertaken that would ``more appropriately 
address'' the use of A2L refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD pointed to 
``several mechanisms'' by which individual building codes may be 
modified by 2018 to allow for A2L refrigerants to be used. They further 
pointed out that even without such measures building codes are expected 
to allow the use of A2L refrigerants if a ``very high level of 
ventilation and explosion-proof electronics are used.'' They concluded 
that ``states with old codes will not truly be off limits to 
manufacturers using mildly flammable refrigerants in their chillers.''
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. The comments 
provided indicated that some changes could be incorporated into the 
model codes 2018 cycle. Nonetheless, EPA agrees with other commenters 
that the integration of appropriate changes to the model codes may not 
occur until the 2021 cycle, and as explained in section VI.A.5.b.iii 
above, finds that a January 1, 2024, change of status date, which 
allows three years for State and local adoption of the 2021 model code, 
is appropriate under such circumstances. AHRI is one of three entities 
that announced a new research program between the HVAC industry and the 
Federal government that ``will provide the technical knowledge needed 
to facilitate and accelerate the safe use of these refrigerants.'' 
\127\ As the table provided by UTC shows, some states were already 
using the most recent (2015) codes and the majority were just one cycle 
(i.e., 2012) behind as of early 2016. This would imply that many states 
will be able to adopt the 2021 codes by the 2024 status change date. 
UTC, Johnson Controls, AHRI, and NRDC did not address whether 
amendments could be made, either to the codes themselves or to state 
and local adoptions of the codes, without full adoption of a specific 
cycle of building codes, providing the necessary changes, if any, to 
allow chillers with acceptable alternatives to be used after the status 
change date, but other comment provide evidence of such possibility. 
UTC, Johnson Controls, and AHRI also did not address whether 
alternative means and measures, such as those discussed by the private 
citizen

[[Page 86825]]

and NRDC jointly with IGSD, could be taken to obtain approval from the 
authority having jurisdiction to approve the use of such chillers where 
a state or locality had not otherwise adopted the building codes 
suggested as needed. Finally, considering UTC, Johnson Controls, and 
AHRI are aware that some state adoptions lag the most recent codes by 
up to 12 years, it is logical to assume there would be plans to address 
such adoptions if they were to persist past their proposed status 
change date of 2025, which is only four years after the code cycle that 
their comments presume will allow for implementation of A2L options. 
UTC, Johnson Controls, and AHRI, did not provide any details on such 
plans, or why they could not equally be implemented by the 2024 status 
change date, apart from AHRI's assumption of Federal government 
assistance and further announcements of such. EPA is not aware that any 
part of the Federal government was represented or consulted when the 
AHRI Chiller Section and NRDC agreed to recommend a January 1, 2025, 
transition date; however, we do note subsequent to the AHRI Chiller 
Section and NRDC letter announcing this agreement, DOE along with AHRI 
and ASHRAE, announced the $5.2 million effort ``that will establish a 
more robust fact base about the properties and the use of flammable 
refrigerants'' with an intent to update standards.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ AHRI, 2016. ``AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable 
Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is accessible at 
http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170.
    \128\ ASHRAE, 2016. ``ASHRAE, AHRI, DOE Partner to Fund 
Flammable Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is 
accessible at https://www.ashrae.org/news/2016/ashrae-ahri-doe-partner-to-fund-flammable-refrigerant-research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: UTC maintained that where codes did not allow the use of 
A2L refrigerants after the status change date, businesses' only option 
would be to repair a less efficient system. Elsewhere UTC stated that 
another possibility would be for customers to use a packaged product or 
variable refrigerant flow system.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal chillers and positive displacement chillers. As previously 
noted, EPA believes that the change of status date of January 1, 2024, 
allows sufficient time for adoption of industry standards and changes 
to relevant codes. In determining a change of status date, EPA does not 
simply pick the latest date by which the Agency can be certain that all 
codes will be updated. To the extent there may be codes that have not 
been modified by the change of status date, users will have several 
options in addition to the option of repair of an existing system or 
use of a non-chiller system. As noted in the preamble and in 
information in the docket to this rule, multiple chillers using 
nonflammable refrigerants are available today and others have been 
announced for release by 2017. Both Ingersoll Rand and Johnson Controls 
have indicated a full line of centrifugal chillers using nonflammable 
options. These two companies also have nonflammable options for 
positive displacement chillers. Although commenters indicated the only 
options currently being investigated for positive displacement chillers 
currently using R-410A are flammable refrigerants, there is sufficient 
time to develop, certify and release such chillers prior to the change 
of status date.
v. Narrowed Use Limits for Military Marine Vessels, Human-Rated 
Spacecraft, and Related Support Equipment
    Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and the Department of Defense (DoD) 
supported EPA's proposal to find HFC-134a acceptable, subject to 
narrowed use limits for centrifugal and positive displacement chillers 
on military marine vessels. In addition to the reasons discussed in the 
proposed rule (81 FR 22844; April 18, 2016), comments submitted by the 
Department of the Navy on behalf of DoD addressed several alternatives 
that are acceptable for chillers and not subject to status change that 
have been found to not meet the stringent requirements for military 
marine vessels. For instance, DoD pointed out that certain alternatives 
that are flammable, such as HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, would not meet the 
DoD's requirements. While in stationary applications the flammability 
may be handled, for instance, by increased ventilation, this is not a 
practical solution for submarines or surface-going ships under warfare 
conditions. DoD also discussed R-1233zd(E), noting that it would be 
used in low-pressure chillers that are not acceptable for narrow 
military uses due to reliability and maintenance issues. Boeing also 
reiterated that ``testing of alternate refrigerants or blowing agents 
for these niche markets may require more time than for mass-market 
commercial items, due to customer and regulatory agency approval 
requirements.''
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the 
assessment made by DoD of specific technical issues in transitioning 
for military marine vessels and is finalizing the narrowed use limit. 
Because EPA is finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2024 for 
this refrigerant in other chillers, the narrowed use limit would 
likewise start on January 1, 2024.
    Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and NASA supported EPA's proposal to 
find HFC-134a and R-404A acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers for human-rated 
spacecraft and related support equipment. Although NASA anticipates 
using this narrowed use limit for only a small number of chillers, they 
indicated that critical properties of the chiller system were required 
for such applications that include ground-based assembly, integration 
and test operations, and launch of the spacecraft.
    Response: EPA interprets these comments as applying to both 
centrifugal and positive displacement chillers. EPA agrees with the 
assessment made by NASA and is finalizing the narrowed use limit. 
Because EPA is finalizing a status change date of January 1, 2024 for 
these refrigerants in other chillers, the narrowed use limit would 
likewise start on January 1, 2024.
6. Change of Status Listing for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Cold 
Storage Warehouses
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
    Cold storage warehouses are temperature-controlled facilities used 
to store meat, produce, dairy and other products that are delivered to 
other locations for sale to the ultimate consumer. This end-use within 
the SNAP program describes an application of refrigeration equipment 
for an intended purpose, and hence the listings of acceptable and 
unacceptable refrigerants for this end-use apply regardless of the type 
of refrigeration system used.
    As explained in the proposed rule (81 FR 22849; April 18, 2016), 
cold storage warehouses are usually deemed ``private'' or ``public,'' 
and some may be both, describing the relationship between the owner or 
operator of the cold storage warehouse and the owner of the products 
stored within.
    Cold storage warehouses are also often divided into two general 
uses: ``coolers'' that store products at temperatures above 32 [deg]F 
(0 [deg]C) and ``freezers'' that store products below this temperature. 
Some subdivisions of these types were also provided in the proposed 
rule (81 FR 22849; April 18, 2016).
    We explained that several other end-uses under the SNAP program 
cover other parts of the food (and product) cold chain and are distinct 
from the cold storage warehouse end-use. We

[[Page 86826]]

drew distinctions between the ``cold storage warehouse'' end-use which 
is subject to this action and the IPR end-use while noting that many 
facilities may have operations and refrigeration equipment for both 
end-uses. We also discussed ``refrigerated food processing and 
dispensing equipment,'' which is a category of the ``retail food 
refrigeration'' end-use and is subject to separate decisions in this 
action (see section VI.A.7). Finally, we discussed ``cold rooms'' and 
``walk-in'' coolers and freezers, noting that many used for storage of 
food and beverages at a retail food location (e.g., a supermarket or 
restaurant) are considered to fall within other retail food 
refrigeration end-use categories that were covered by a previous rule 
(80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). See section VI.A.4.c.i of the proposed 
rule for background on the cold storage warehouse end-use (81 FR 22849-
51; April 18, 2016).
    EPA understands that existing cold storage warehouses may undergo 
expansion to handle needs such as increased production, consolidation 
of distribution points, or increased population or other reasons for 
increased demands of the products stored. Such expansions could include 
a physical expansion of the storage space or using racking techniques 
to increase the amount of product within a given facility. The owner of 
cold storage warehouses undergoing such expansions (or the owner's 
designer) may determine that a new system needs to be added. That new 
system could be a complete newly manufactured system separate from the 
existing system, or it could be equipment and refrigerant added to the 
existing system increasing the capacity of the existing system. In both 
cases, EPA considers these actions as the manufacturing of a new system 
and hence that equipment is affected by the changes of status in this 
final rule.
    A commenter stated that cold storage warehouses are ``typically 
designed with planned expansions'' and that the change of status should 
not apply to any future expansion of such warehouses. EPA addressed the 
definition of a ``new'' system as used in the SNAP program in a 
previous rule (80 FR 42902-03; July 20, 2015). As explained there, 
consistent with the definition in 40 CFR part 82, subparts A and I, EPA 
considers a system to be new for purposes of these SNAP determinations 
as of the date upon which the refrigerant circuit is complete, the 
system can function, the system holds a full refrigerant charge, and 
the system is ready for use for its intended purposes. Therefore, as 
used in the SNAP program, ``new'' refers to the manufacture and often 
installation of a refrigeration system for an intended purpose, which 
may occur on a newly manufactured or an existing cold storage 
warehouse. The status changes in this action would apply to the 
expansion of the refrigeration system in an existing cold storage 
warehouse if the capacity of that existing refrigeration system is 
increased to handle the expansion. Because the existing system capacity 
was inadequate to provide the necessary cooling for the expanded load, 
the existing system did not meet the intended purpose of the expanded 
capacity, and therefore if it were expanded to hand that load it would 
be considered ``new'' with respect to SNAP. On the other hand, if an 
existing refrigeration system is extended (for instance, by adding 
additional refrigerant lines and evaporators to a newly manufactured or 
newly commissioned building, to a portion of the existing facility 
previously not used for cold storage, or to an extension of the 
previous building), without requiring an increase in capacity and while 
only needing the same full refrigerant charge as before, the system is 
not considered ``new'' and hence may continue its operations with the 
existing refrigerant. Likewise, a facility may increase the amount of 
products it handles while at the same time providing better sealing 
around infiltration points and/or increasing the insulation on walls 
and roofs, and thereby avoid the need to increase the refrigeration 
capacity of the equipment serving the cold storage warehouse.
    Commenters suggested divisions in the cold storage warehouse market 
by which EPA should finalize separate decisions. One suggestion was to 
distinguish between indirect and direct systems. In today's action, EPA 
is not subdividing the cold storage warehouse end-use based on whether 
a direct or indirect system is used. As addressed below, the commenter 
suggesting this subdivision, and different change of status decisions 
for the two subdivisions, did not provide evidence how any of the SNAP 
criteria varied between the two subdivisions, instead only addressing 
energy efficiency and economic burden.
    Another comment suggested a distinction between those cold storage 
warehouses with a footprint of 3,000 square feet (279 square meters) or 
less, noting they are covered by DOE energy conservation standards for 
walk-in coolers and freezers, a point brought out in the proposed rule 
(81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016). A commenter stated that EPA should 
consider all such cold storage warehouses to be part of the retail food 
refrigeration end-use because manufacturers make equipment that could 
be used for retail food refrigeration or could be used in a manner that 
would be classified as a cold storage warehouse within SNAP. In today's 
action, EPA is not changing the definition of the cold storage 
warehouse end-use such that some types are considered a different end-
use by virtue of their size. As addressed below, comments suggesting 
this subdivision did not provide evidence how any of the SNAP criteria 
varied between these two subdivisions. Although comments as well as the 
proposed rule noted that such types of cold storage warehouses are 
subject to DOE energy conservation regulations, the comments did not 
indicate how this fact would change the availability of acceptable 
alternatives by the change of status date proposed.
    An equipment manufacturer commented that many industrial processors 
have multiple cold storage warehouses on the same campus and that these 
may be cooled from a system that also provides cooling to other 
applications, such as an industrial process refrigeration system. The 
manufacturer stated that EPA should ``treat campuses with multiple 
building and processing areas as one complete industrial process.'' EPA 
notes, however, that SNAP decisions are on an end-use basis, and 
therefore any cold storage warehouse may only use a refrigerant listed 
as acceptable for that end-use. While through today's action EPA is not 
changing the status of refrigerants in the industrial process 
refrigeration end-use, we are doing so for new cold storage warehouses, 
and as such some refrigerants in this end-use will be listed as 
unacceptable as of the change of status date.
    EPA is not aware of other federal rules applying to efficiency of 
cold storage warehouses (i.e., the buildings), but we find that some 
federal rules apply to equipment that could be used in this specified 
end-use. Specifically, EPA noted in the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; 
April 18, 2016) that air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and 
heat pumps (``CUACs'' and ``CUHPs'') might be applied at cold storage 
warehouses, and such equipment is subject to DOE energy conservation 
standards. Comment from NRDC and IGSD confirmed that cold storage 
warehouses, among other types of designs, could be outfitted with 
rooftop units that must comply with the DOE rule, and that 
``[m]anufacturers are expecting to begin using HFC-32, R-452B, and 
other A2L-class refrigerants in rooftop units in 2023 at the latest.'' 
For further information on the

[[Page 86827]]

relationship between this action and other federal rules, see section 
VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016).
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar application but 
are not covered by this section of the rule?
    EPA has found several not-in-kind systems (i.e., systems that 
operate using thermodynamic cycles other than vapor-compression) 
acceptable for this end-use, including ammonia absorption, evaporative 
cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling cycle systems, which are not 
subject to this action.
iii. What refrigerants are used in cold storage warehouses?
    In section VI.A.4.c.i of the proposed rule, EPA indicated that R-
717 is believed to be the most common refrigerant used in cold storage 
warehouses and provided information on equipment types and system 
designs that facilitate the use of that refrigerant (81 FR 22850-22851; 
April 18, 2016).
    We noted that limitations on the use of R-717 do exist. For 
example, it is reported that charge sizes exceeding 10,000 pounds of R-
717 ``may require government-mandated process safety management (PSM) 
and [a] risk management plan (RMP).'' \129\ Various state and local 
building codes could also apply, and adherence to such codes might 
hinder or even eliminate the use of R-717 in some cold storage 
warehouses. Likewise, regulations may require employing operators with 
special levels of expertise, reporting of use or accidental releases, 
and other actions not typically required for other alternatives, 
increasing the operating cost compared to facilities using other 
refrigerants. These increased costs however are often offset by the 
high energy efficiencies typically achieved with R-717 systems. We also 
pointed to equipment designs, such as low charge packaged R-717 
systems, R-717/R-744 cascade systems, and indirect secondary-loop 
systems using R-717 as the primary refrigerant in a machine room 
separated from the cooled interior, that can overcome some limitations 
on the use of R-717. These systems are described in market 
characterizations found in the docket to this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663).\130\ While R-717 is the most common refrigerant used in cold 
storage warehouses, others have used CFC-12, R-502 and HCFC-22 and more 
recently R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, or R-507A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, 
Inc. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
    \130\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression, 
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration 
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, AHRI, indicated manufacturers are developing R-407A 
condensing units that could be used in cold storage warehouses, 
particularly those less than 3,000 square feet which, as noted in 
section VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016), 
are subject to DOE energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers 
and freezers.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    For new cold storage warehouses, EPA proposed to change as of 
January 1, 2023, the status of the following refrigerants from 
acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/
42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, 
R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition). In this action, we are 
finalizing the status changes that we proposed with no changes. The 
change of status determinations for new cold storage warehouses are 
summarized in Table 9.

                       Table 9--Change of Status Decisions for New Cold Storage Warehouses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                                    Substitutes                         Listing Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Storage Warehouses (new)........  HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/    Unacceptable as of
                                        1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-  January 1, 2023.
                                        417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-
                                        422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-
                                        507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    Other refrigerants for new cold storage warehouse not subject to 
this action are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-407C, 
R-407F, R-437A, R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744, RS-24 (2002 composition), 
SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. In the proposed rule, EPA provided 
information on the environmental and health risks presented by the 
alternatives that are being found unacceptable compared with other 
available alternatives that are listed as acceptable (81 FR 22851-52; 
April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical support document \131\ that 
provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP 
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable 
alternatives, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, for new 
cold storage warehouses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking 
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter requested that EPA clarify which refrigerants in the 
R-407 series were subject to a change in status, while others 
specifically requested that we not change the status of R-407A and R-
407B in cold storage warehouses. We are finalizing a change of status 
for the refrigerants we proposed. With respect to the R-407 series 
refrigerants in this end-use, EPA only proposed a change of status for 
R-407A and R-407B based on our analysis that these two blends posed a 
higher overall risk to human health and the environment than other 
available refrigerants for this end use. EPA did not propose and is not 
taking action in this rule to change the status of R-407C and R-407F in 
cold storage warehouses; those refrigerants remain acceptable in this 
end-use. EPA has not listed others in the R-407 series, including R-
407D, R-407E and R-407G, and R-407H, acceptable in this end-use.
    For cold storage warehouses, the refrigerants we are listing as 
unacceptable have insignificant ODPs, but they have GWPs ranging from 
2,090 to 3,990. As shown in Table 10, acceptable alternatives have GWPs 
ranging from zero to 1,820.

[[Page 86828]]



            Table 10--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Cold Storage Warehouses \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Refrigerants                  GWP               ODP                  VOC             Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744.....           0-630  0..................  No.................  Acceptable.
IKON A, IKON B, THR-02...........          30-560  0--Not public \3\..  Yes \4\............  Acceptable.
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F.........     1,430-1,820  0..................  No.................  Acceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-437A, RS-       920-1,810  0--Not public \3\..  Yes \4\............  Acceptable.
 24 (2002 composition), SP34E,
 THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-    2,090-2,800  0..................  No.................  Unacceptable.
 421A, R-423A.
R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/       2,260-2,730  0..................  Yes \4\............  Unacceptable.
 1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R-
 424A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003
 composition).
HFC-227ea, R-421B, R-404A, R-507A     3,190-3,990  0..................  No.................  Unacceptable.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A...     3,080-3,610  0..................  Yes \4\............  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action, as well 
as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the listing 
from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of R-290, R-600, 
or other substances that are VOCs. These amounts are small and for this 
end-use, are not expected to contribute significantly to ground-level 
ozone formation.\132\ In the actions where EPA listed these 
refrigerants as acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA 
concluded none of these refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly 
greater risk to ground-level ozone formation than other alternative 
refrigerants that do not meet the definition of VOC under CAA 
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or that are specifically excluded 
from that definition for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and 
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants listed as acceptable and not subject to this 
action are highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, 
rather than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life 
are expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or 
ecosystem effects than those of the refrigerants that are subject to 
the status change for this end-use.
    With the exception of R-717, all other acceptable refrigerants, as 
well as those that we are listing as unacceptable, are not flammable 
and are of low toxicity (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE Standard 34-
2013 are Class A toxicity and Class 1 nonflammable). R-717 is mildly 
flammable with a low flame speed; it is classified as a B2L refrigerant 
under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long history of use as a 
refrigerant in cold storage warehouses and other applications. In the 
original SNAP rule, EPA noted ``[R-717] has been used as a medium to 
low temperature refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more than 
100 years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent refrigerant properties, a 
characteristic pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low 
cost. It is, however, mildly flammable and toxic, although it is not a 
cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term 
exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia [R-717].'' (53 FR 13072; March 18, 
1994). We further noted its use in various food and beverage processing 
and storage applications as well as other industrial applications. In 
that rule, we found R-717 acceptable for use in new cold storage 
warehouses, concluding that its overall risk to human health and the 
environment was not significantly greater than the other alternatives 
found acceptable. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the 
regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on such use as well as 
standard refrigeration practices, such as ASHRAE Standard 15 and the 
IIAR Standard 2,\133\ which are often utilized by local authorities 
when setting their own building and safety requirements. See section 
VI.A.4.c.iii.(b) of the proposed rule (81 FR 22852; April 18, 2016) for 
a discussion on the long history of use of R-717 and our original 
decision finding it acceptable in new cold storage warehouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ ANSI/IIAR Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National 
Standard for Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit 
Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly 
different for the other available alternatives than for those we 
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the 
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly 
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the 
following refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a 
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, 
R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).
ii. When will the status change?
    EPA is establishing a change of status date for the above-listed 
refrigerants new cold storage warehouses of January 1, 2023, which the 
Agency finds is a reasonable yet expeditious date by which the 
technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth transition to 
alternatives. This amount of time is needed particularly considering 
the various equipment types that could be employed to provide the 
cooling necessary for new cold storage warehouses and the requirement 
for many of these equipment types to meet energy conservation standards 
while undergoing such a transition. Although acceptable alternatives, 
particularly R-717, are widely used, EPA recognizes based on comment 
that R-717 is not an option due to technical or compliance constraints 
at some facilities. For these facilities, the user would need the time 
to investigate the use of other alternatives and to design, and 
possibly certify to DOE energy conservation standards, equipment using 
the chosen alternative. As discussed in the proposed rule (81 FR 22850; 
April 18, 2016), in some cases, R-717 may not have been chosen based on 
building code and regulatory restrictions that might have eliminated 
its use. As also discussed there, and as supported by comment, 
technologies are under development that can overcome some such 
limitations; for example, newly-developed low-charge R-717 systems

[[Page 86829]]

can overcome building code and regulatory challenges that arise when 
large charge sizes would otherwise be required, although we recognize 
that such equipment may not be allowed in certain jurisdictions or may 
not be practical in certain situations. EPA is establishing a January 
1, 2023, status change date in part to allow these technologies to more 
fully mature and become more fully available in the market. In addition 
to these technologies, because a wide variety of other equipment types 
can be applied at a cold storage warehouse, and some such equipment is 
subject to DOE energy conservation requirements, EPA expects that this 
period of time will allow acceptable alternatives to become more fully 
available for cold storage warehouses. For locations and applications 
that would otherwise use HFC blends subject to status change, primarily 
R-404A, R-410A and R-507A, time is needed to develop equipment with 
other alternative refrigerants or address the technical challenges of 
using R-717 or other alternatives that are not subject to the proposed 
change in status. As explained in section VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed 
rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 2016), certain types of equipment 
potentially applied in cold storage warehouses are subject to energy 
conservation standards, and hence time will be required to design, test 
and certify equipment for those standards, while at the same time using 
acceptable alternatives.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received comments on various topics including, the proposed 
status change date of January 1, 2023, the refrigerants proposed for 
status change, the acceptability of other refrigerants, and requests 
for subdividing the category and limiting the status changes based on 
those subdivisions.
    Commenters included AHRI, an industry organization; CARB, a state 
agency; Daikin and Zero Zone, equipment manufacturers; Chemours, 
Honeywell, and National Refrigerants, three chemical producers; and 
NRDC, IGSD, and EIA, three environmental organizations.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
    Comment: Daikin suggested that EPA subdivide the cold storage 
warehouse end-use into ``Indirect Expansion Refrigeration System[s]'' 
and ``Direct Expansion Refrigeration System[s].'' They did not suggest 
any different decisions for the former. For the latter, they 
recommended that R-410A remain acceptable, noting that it (along with 
R-407C and R-407F) is also used in direct systems. Daikin commented 
that both direct and indirect systems may be used, even at the same 
facility. Daikin said that customer requirements will typically 
determine the refrigeration system and that these requirements depend 
on ``the use conditions, structure of the building and climatic 
considerations among other factors.''
    Response: EPA is not subdividing the end-use as suggested. For 
direct systems, two of the three refrigerants they mentioned as being 
typically used--R-407C and R-407F--remain acceptable as proposed. 
Daikin did not provide any indication of why in direct systems R-410A 
would be required as opposed to these refrigerants not subject to 
status change. The commenter did not indicate specifically what use 
conditions, building structures, climates or other technical barriers 
warranted subdividing the end-use as suggested, nor did the commenter 
offer reasons for not changing the status of one particular refrigerant 
in one of those subdivisions.
    Comment: Zero Zone agreed with EPA's explanation of the distinction 
between cold storage warehouses and IPR.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this comment.
    Comment: Zero Zone claimed that EPA should consider small cold 
storage warehouses--those with a footprint of 3,000 square feet (279 
square meters) or less--as fitting in the retail food refrigeration 
end-use. They noted that DOE and California regulations cover such 
items, whether they are cold storage warehouses or they are used for 
retail food refrigeration, as walk-in coolers or freezers. They felt 
that equipment manufacturers supplying equipment that meets such 
definitions of walk-in coolers or freezers ``need to be able to supply 
the same equipment'' regardless of whether they would be classified as 
a cold storage warehouse or retail food refrigeration under SNAP. They 
said that equipment manufacturers should not have to ``ascertain what 
product will be in the building.'' Zero Zone stated that both R-407A 
and R-407B should remain acceptable, especially if EPA did not treat 
small cold storage warehouses as part of the retail food refrigeration 
end use. AHRI also stated that R-407A and R-407B should be acceptable 
in cold storage warehouses because the same unit cooler equipment, 
whether used in a cold storage warehouse or in retail food 
refrigeration, would need to comply with DOE energy efficiency 
standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. They stated manufacturers 
are preparing systems that use R-407A for small cold storage 
warehouses. Daikin, NRDC, and IGSD indicated that R-407C and R-407F are 
also used in cold storage warehouses. National Refrigerants asked EPA 
to list all R-407 series refrigerants acceptable for cold storage 
warehouses to provide additional options and to ``eliminate confusion 
in the industry'' and ``ease compliance for technicians and equipment 
owners by giving them the flexibility to utilize their R-407 preferred 
refrigerant.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that certain cold storage warehouses should 
be included as part of the retail food refrigeration end-use. EPA 
established status changes for three retail food refrigeration end-use 
categories in a previous rule and stated that equipment in these 
categories of the SNAP end-use could also be subject to DOE's energy 
conservation standards for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers (80 FR 82902; 
July 20, 2015). Likewise, we noted in our proposed rule (81 FR 22853; 
April 18, 2016) that small cold storage warehouses could also be 
covered by these DOE standards. We disagree that R-407A and R-407B 
should remain acceptable despite the indication that some products are 
being designed using the former or for a manufacturer's preference to 
use the same refrigerant in different end-uses. We are particularly 
confused by the inclusion of R-407B in the comments from Zero Zone and 
AHRI requesting we find it acceptable, as we changed the status of that 
refrigerant for all categories of new retail food refrigeration 
addressed in a previous rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). If we were 
to treat small cold storage warehouses as retail food refrigeration, as 
these commenters also suggest, R-407B would be subject to status 
change. Several alternatives that remain acceptable for cold storage 
warehouses are also acceptable for various retail food refrigeration 
end-use categories. For instance, R-407C and R-407F, which as noted are 
being used in some cold storage warehouses, are also acceptable for the 
retail food refrigeration remote condensing unit end-use category. 
Manufacturers who wish to use only one refrigerant may do so and to the 
extent they are already using a refrigerant that is subject to status 
change in the cold storage warehouse end-use, EPA finds no evidence 
that these or other acceptable alternatives cannot be adopted by the

[[Page 86830]]

2023 status change date while continuing to meet DOE energy 
conservation standards.
    Further, we disagree that to eliminate confusion, ease compliance, 
or provide flexibility we should list all R-407 series refrigerants as 
acceptable. EPA reviews refrigerants individually and is aware that 
manufacturers, users, and owners make it their business to know the 
exact refrigerant they are using, since they currently are aware that 
not all R-407 series refrigerants are acceptable in this or any other 
end-use. Just because two or more refrigerants are made up of the same 
components \134\ does not mean they present the same overall risk to 
human health and the environment. Indeed, R-407 and other series 
refrigerants are made up of components having different flammability, 
toxicity, GWP, and other characteristics considered by SNAP, making a 
knowledge of specific composition critical to evaluating associated 
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ All R-407 series refrigerants are composed of HFC-32, HFC-
125 and HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, Chemours, and CARB supported EPA changing 
the status to unacceptable of those refrigerants we proposed for such 
change in new cold storage warehouses.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenters for these comments.
    Comment: Chemours felt that R-407C and R-407F should also be listed 
as unacceptable stating there are multiple alternatives. Daikin 
compared R-410A to R-448A and R-449A, arguing that because R-410A can 
reduce the amount of refrigerant needed by 30 percent, the total GWP-
weighted emissions would be similar to that of R-448A and R-449A. CARB 
stated that R-717, especially in low-charge units, and R-744 could be 
used. EIA suggested that EPA continue to evaluate additional 
refrigerants and consider those for status change, mentioning HFC-134a, 
R-407C, R-407F, R-450A, and R-513A.
    Response: EPA's proposal was limited to determinations for the 
specific refrigerants proposed which pose significantly greater risk 
than other available refrigerants. We cannot take final action changing 
the status of additional refrigerants without first performing the 
necessary analysis of the SNAP criteria and providing notice and an 
opportunity for comment.
    In response to the suggestion that we list additional specific 
refrigerants as unacceptable, we note that at least two--R-407C and R-
407F--are currently used in cold storage warehouses. In addition to 
considering the SNAP criteria in determining whether to propose action 
to change the status of an acceptable substitute, we also need to 
consider whether there are other alternatives available. Although we 
recognize that alternatives such as R-717 and R-744 are available for 
certain types of equipment in certain applications in the cold storage 
warehouses end-use, the information available at this time does not 
indicate that there are available alternatives for all types of 
equipment in all types of applications.
    Comment: AHRI, Zero Zone, and Honeywell all supported an EPA action 
to list R-448A and R-449A as acceptable for cold storage warehouses. 
Honeywell noted that they are already being implemented in similar 
equipment for the supermarket systems end-use category. On the other 
hand, NRDC and IGSD urged EPA to find these two refrigerants 
unacceptable, while EIA asked EPA to ``[r]equest advance comments on 
changing the listing status'' of these two HFC/HFO blends as well as R-
450A and R-513A for new cold storage warehouses.
    Response: These comments suggesting that EPA take action to list 
additional substitutes as acceptable or to change the listing status of 
already-listed substitutes go beyond the scope of this rulemaking. As 
noted previously, EPA may in the future issue a new proposal to change 
the status of additional refrigerants in this end use after considering 
what other alternatives are available and performing an analysis using 
the SNAP criteria. Regarding the request that EPA substitutes not 
already on one of the lists as acceptable or unacceptable, EPA notes 
that R-448A and R-449A have been submitted to the SNAP Program for 
review, but EPA has not yet issued a proposed decision for these 
refrigerants or issued a Notice of Acceptability.
ii. Change of Status Date
    Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, and Chemours supported EPA's proposed 
2023 status change date for new cold storage warehouses.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenters for these comments.
    Comment: Honeywell suggested a status change date of January 1, 
2019, based on the fact that several options, including R-407F, R-717, 
and R-744, are acceptable for new cold storage warehouses. They also 
indicated R-448A and R-449A are potential options that could be 
implemented by January 1, 2019.
    Response: EPA agrees that many of the acceptable refrigerants not 
subject to status change have been and can continue to be used in many 
types of equipment for many of the applications for new cold storage 
warehouses. EPA established a status change date of 2023 based on the 
time required to address the number of different equipment types and 
system designs used for cold storage warehouse and to redesign, and if 
required recertify as compliant with DOE energy conservation standards. 
EPA has determined that a change of status date of January 1, 2023, is 
reasonable and expeditious in light of the various DOE energy 
conservation standards that must be met (and for which equipment needs 
to be designed and manufactured), the need to further assess currently 
acceptable nonflammable and low toxicity alternatives in specific 
applications, and the need to develop safe practices and institute 
State and local code changes if required for flammable and higher 
toxicity alternatives for certain equipment where the application and/
or the location limits the use of flammable or higher toxicity 
refrigerants at this time. The commenter did not provide a discussion 
of these equipment design and application issues or an indication of 
how those can be addressed by 2019.
    Comment: CARB suggested a status change date of 2020, noting that 
low-charge R-717 systems address issues with that refrigerant's use in 
cold storage warehouses and where it cannot be used, R-744 or other 
non-toxic, low-GWP refrigerants could be used.
    Response: The commenter did not provide technical support that a 
change of status date of January 1, 2020, was feasible. The commenter 
does not provide any detail on the use of R-744 in those applications 
where R-717 is not an option, and we are not aware that its use has 
been demonstrated for all of those applications. We are aware that R-
744 is being used for new cold storage warehouses in cascade and 
secondary loop systems with R-717. However, we did not see similar 
evidence it can be used in a direct system (i.e., not in a cascade or 
secondary loop system with R-717) in the various equipment types and 
designs used for this end-use.
    Comment: Zero Zone stated that the change of status for R-404A and 
R-507A should be January 1, 2025, because those refrigerants offer the 
low-glide properties desired for flooded or liquid overfeed systems. 
They compared these to R-450A and R-513A--both of which are acceptable 
in new cold storage warehouses and are not subject to the change in 
status--which they described as also having low glide but low 
volumetric efficiency. They felt the time was necessary ``to allow 
technology and chemical companies to come up with a solution to this 
design issue.''
    Response: The commenter did not provide any information that it was 
not

[[Page 86831]]

technically feasible to transition away from R-404A and R-507A until 
January 1, 2025. No explanatory timeline or past experience was 
provided that indicated how long it might take to resolve the issues 
they described. Other commenters have noted that R-407C and R-407F, 
which are also high-glide blends, are used in cold storage warehouses. 
Although they did not mention whether those were specifically used in 
the flooded evaporator systems described, we are not aware and Zero 
Zone has not provided any information on why they could not be used. 
Zero Zone also did not discuss why single-component (no glide) 
refrigerants including R-717 and R-744 could not be used in the types 
of systems with which they are concerned. Finally, the commenter noted 
that there are some low-glide blends available, but did not provide the 
detail on the steps needed to redesign equipment to account for the low 
volumetric efficiency they indicated for those available alternatives 
and why those steps could not be completed before January 1, 2025.
iii. SNAP Review Criteria
    Comment: Daikin believed that ``it is important to note the 
equipment's potential total environmental impact (i.e. refrigerant 
quantity multiplied with GWP), not only the refrigerant's GWP value.'' 
As such, they stated that R-410A could reduce the total charge size up 
to 30 percent compared to R-404A.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment to be based on the SNAP 
review criteria of ``atmospheric effects,'' which is discussed above in 
section II.E.1. In a previous proposed rule and in the response to 
comments document for the associated final rule, we discussed the 
possibility of allowing refrigerants with a higher GWP in low-charge 
systems. In particular, we stated ``given the high GWP of these 
refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are available in 
[supermarket systems], we do not believe that use with a small charge 
size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose.'' (79 FR 46148; 
August 6, 2014). The same consideration is applicable here for R-410A, 
even if systems were designed to reduce the total charge size as Daikin 
says is possible. Use in a lower-charge system does not guarantee lower 
overall emissions. If catastrophic losses occurred in a system 
employing R-410A or other high-GWP refrigerants, the emissions in 
CO2-equivalent terms could be more than if a lower-GWP 
refrigerant were used in the same or a similarly low-charge design. For 
instance, an acceptable alternative could be used in a secondary loop 
design, reducing the amount of that refrigerant used for the given 
application.
7. Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Retail Food 
Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment)
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
    In the SNAP July 2015 rule (80 FR 42902), EPA clarified that 
``equipment designed to make or process cold food and beverages that 
are dispensed via a nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream machines, 
`slushy' iced beverage dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers'' was not 
included as part of the retail food refrigeration end-use categories 
specifically identified in that final rule. EPA clarified that this 
equipment is part of a separate end-use category within the retail food 
refrigeration end-use. This end-use category, ``refrigerated food 
processing and dispensing equipment,'' is covered in this section of 
the final rule. For an overview of this end-use category, please refer 
to section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22854-55; April 18, 
2016).
    One commenter, UTC, pointed out that certain soft-serve and other 
frozen dairy treats may not fall within the technical definition of 
ice-cream due to milk fat content, but that such products ``are handled 
like ice-cream and shake products from an operational point of view.'' 
UTC also stated that a creamer dispenser (refrigerated unit dispensing 
creamer in a dosed amount) and bulk milk dispensers (refrigerated unit 
holding a container of milk that dispenses through a small nozzle when 
the handle is lifted) would fit in this category as well. EPA's use of 
``including'' in its description of the type of equipment that falls 
under this end use indicates that the list was not intended to be 
exclusive. EPA considers the types of equipment identified by UTC, 
which dispense products through a nozzle, to fit within the end-use.
ii. What other types of equipment are used for similar applications but 
are not covered by this section of the rule?
    As noted in section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22854; 
April 18, 2016) certain types of equipment, including water coolers and 
stand-alone retail food refrigeration units, do not fall within this 
end-use category.
iii. What Refrigerants Are Used in Retail Food Refrigeration 
(Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment)
    EPA discussed which refrigerants were acceptable in the 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category 
in section VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR 22855; April 18, 
2016). While numerous refrigerants are acceptable in this end use, as 
noted by the comments from UTC, R-404A is typically used for freezing 
applications and HFC-134a for refrigerated applications.
    In comments submitted on the proposal, AHRI and UTC discussed the 
potential use of R-448A and R-449A in this end-use category, and AHRI 
urged EPA to find these blends acceptable. Other information claimed as 
CBI indicated the potential to transition R-404A applications within 
this end-use category to those refrigerants. Tecumseh also urged EPA to 
list these two refrigerants acceptable as well as R-452A. EPA has 
received submissions for these three refrigerants. Concurrent with this 
rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable without 
use conditions for new refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment. We are currently reviewing R-452A for this end-use.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA 
proposed to change as of January 1, 2021, the status of the following 
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, 
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 
formulation). In this action, we are finalizing the status changes we 
proposed with no changes. The change of status determinations for new 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment are summarized in 
Table 11.

[[Page 86832]]



 Table 11--Change of Status Decisions for New Retail Food Refrigeration
         [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                   Substitutes          Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration     HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/    Unacceptable as
 (refrigerated food            290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/   of January 1,
 processing and dispensing     42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-      2021.
 equipment) (new only).        407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
                               407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
                               417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
                               422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-
                               422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-
                               434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-
                               507A, RS-44 (2003
                               formulation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, the 
substitutes that will remain listed as acceptable pose lower overall 
risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants we are 
listing as unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants include: FOR12A, 
FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), R-
450A, R-513A, R-744, SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. In the proposed rule (81 
FR 22855-22856; April 18, 2016) and SNAP Notice 31 (81 FR 32241; May 
23, 2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health 
risks presented by the alternatives that are being found unacceptable 
compared with other available alternatives that are listed as 
acceptable. Also, concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-
449A and R-449B acceptable for new refrigerated food processing and 
dispensing equipment. A technical support document \135\ that provides 
the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria 
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable 
alternatives, as well as those we are finding unacceptable, for new 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment may be found in 
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable have GWPs ranging 
from 1,770 to 3,990. As shown in Table 12, acceptable alternatives have 
GWPs ranging from one to 1,510.

               Table 12--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Retail Food Refrigeration
                         [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Refrigerants                 GWP                  ODP                    VOC           Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-448A, R-449A, R-            1-1,430  0........................  No...............  Acceptable.
 449B, R-450A, R-513A, R-744.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B,        30-1,510  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..........  Acceptable.
 R-426A, RS-24 (2002
 composition), SP34E, THR-02,
 THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F,     1,770-2,800  0........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
 R-410A, R-410B, R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/    1,810-2,730  0........................  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
 42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
 422D, R-424A, R-437A, R-438A,
 RS-44 (2003 composition).
HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-421B, R-       3,190-3,990  0........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
 507A.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A.     3,080-3,610  0........................  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to this action, as well 
as several of the substitutes for which we are changing the listing 
from acceptable to unacceptable, include small amounts of VOC such as 
R-290 (propane) and R-600 (n-butane). These amounts are small, and for 
this end-use category are not expected to contribute significantly to 
ground-level ozone formation.\136\ In the actions where EPA listed 
these refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these 
refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-
level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that do not 
meet the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
or that are specifically excluded from that definition for the purpose 
of developing SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and 
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating 
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small 
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of 
the refrigerants that are subject to the proposed status change for 
this end-use.
    For this end-use category, all of the refrigerants, including those 
which we are listing as unacceptable, are not flammable (e.g., those 
listed under ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 are class 1 flammability). 
Additionally, as discussed at section VI.A.4.d.iii.(c) of the proposed 
rule (81 FR 22856; April 18, 2016) and in SNAP Notice 31 (81 FR 32245-
46; May 23, 2016), the toxicity of the refrigerants we are listing as 
unacceptable is comparable to that of other alternatives that are 
acceptable in this end-use.
    In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly 
different for the other available alternatives than for those we 
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the 
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly 
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the 
following refrigerants as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-

[[Page 86833]]

407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, 
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 
formulation).
i. When will the status change?
    EPA proposed and is establishing a change of status date for 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment of January 1, 
2021, which the Agency finds is a reasonable yet expeditious date by 
which the technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth 
transition to alternatives particularly considering the need for 
equipment to comply with any sanitation and safety standards while 
continuing to maintain the properties, characteristics and quality of 
the food or beverage provided by the equipment. As discussed below and 
in our response to comments, EPA relied on information from an 
equipment manufacturer claimed as CBI that estimated different 
conversion periods based on two refrigerants--specifically three years 
for R-448A and five years for R-744--and the technical hurdles posed by 
those refrigerants. While current efforts are focused on using those 
two refrigerants, there are a number of other refrigerants listed as 
acceptable for this end-use that manufacturers may also choose to use. 
However, there is no information that suggests that a conversion period 
for these other refrigerants would be any quicker than that for R-448A 
and R-744.
    To address what alternatives might be available and when, comments 
were provided by manufacturers and an association representing 
manufacturers regarding certain refrigerants not currently acceptable 
in this end-use category. Information was provided for R-448A and R-
449A, two HFC/HFO blends designed to mimic the properties of R-404A, 
and one manufacturer and an association representing manufacturers 
requested we find them acceptable for this end-use category. As noted 
above, concurrent with this rule EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-
449B acceptable in this end-use. EPA views the interest expressed by 
comments to be indicative of the progress being made in this end-use 
category and the likely future use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B. As 
noted above, information claimed as CBI indicates a transition to one 
of these refrigerants could occur by January 1, 2021, and was being 
planned by a manufacturer of equipment for this end-use category. EPA 
discussed the status of these HFC/HFO blends and the availability of 
their HFO components in a previous action (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). 
For instance, we concluded then that there was ample supply of these 
refrigerants and we pointed out that Emerson, a major supplier of 
compressors and other components, was qualifying these refrigerants for 
use in its products. Others have followed suit. For instance, Tecumseh 
has approved R-449A as an acceptable alternative to R-404A and was in 
the process of releasing R-449A compressors for use in remote 
condensing units.\137\ This technology and know-how could then likely 
translate into the refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment market, thereby allowing a transition by the January 1, 2021, 
change of status date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Tecumseh, 2016. ``Tecumseh Outlines Position on 
Refrigerant Transition.'' January 25, 2016. This document is 
accessible at http://www.tecumseh.com/en/North-America/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2016/2016-AHR-Press-Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information was also supplied by equipment manufacturers regarding 
the use of R-290 specifically or HCs generically in this equipment. An 
environmental organization indicated that equipment using R-290 is 
already being used in markets outside the United States and recommended 
finding R-290 and R-600a acceptable subject to use conditions. EPA has 
not received a submission for these refrigerants specifically for the 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category. 
If in the future we decide to list these as acceptable, they would be 
included in a Notice of Acceptability published in the Federal 
Register, or, if we were to propose finding them acceptable subject to 
use restrictions or unacceptable, we would publish a separate proposed 
rule.
    Equipment manufacturers also submitted comments on some but not all 
of the acceptable refrigerants not proposed for status change. One 
manufacturer deemed HFC-134a as not appropriate for their equipment 
while a second manufacturer indicated that refrigerant is typically 
used for refrigerated (as opposed to freezing) applications in this 
end-use category. Based on these comments, EPA recognizes that HFC-134a 
is available for a portion of this end-use category, but additional 
time would be required for it, or other acceptable alternatives, to be 
considered available for all of this end-use category.
    One manufacturer provided technical information regarding the 
challenges with using R-744 although as mentioned above information 
claimed as CBI indicated at least one equipment manufacturer was 
planning to transition to that refrigerants. A state agency indicated 
that low-GWP refrigerants including R-744 ``are currently available for 
refrigeration in retail food.'' Also, a group of companies, 
Refrigerants, Naturally!, stated that ``there are natural refrigerant 
alternatives available on the market'' for dispensing equipment. The 
former comment discussed retail food refrigeration generally, rather 
than the refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment category 
specifically. The latter comment only mentioned ``dispensing 
equipment'' and did not mention equipment that may also process food 
and beverages as well as dispensing it. As such EPA views these 
statements as indicative of the availability of alternatives for a 
portion but not necessarily all of the equipment within this end-use 
category.
    EPA finds however that the progress using R-744 is far enough along 
to consider that it will be available for the vast majority, if not 
all, of the equipment in this end-use category that are using 
refrigerants subject to status change by January 1, 2021. As noted in 
the proposal (81 FR 22856; April 18, 2016), the Coca-Cola Company, 
which purchases equipment in this and other retail food refrigeration 
end-use categories, has announced their plans to convert to non-HFC 
technologies for all new cold-drink equipment by 2015, and selected R-
744 as its refrigerant of choice.\138\ The Coca-Cola Company has 
already placed over 1.4 million HFC-free units globally (80 FR 42919-
42920; July 20, 2015) and it was reported that the company would only 
``narrowly miss'' its 2015 target to be HFC-free.\139\ The demand 
created by this company for R-744 in this end-use category (as well as 
for commercial refrigeration equipment in other end use categories 
addressed in a previous rule) is expected to increase the availability 
of R-744 components over the next several years. The time provided by 
the status change date will allow other components to be developed, for 
example to provide R-744 compressors designed for this end-use category 
rather than the ``continuous, longer run systems'' as mentioned by an 
equipment manufacturer. Further, as this company purchases equipment 
from other suppliers, EPA expects that similar equipment, and the 
components used by such equipment, will become more

[[Page 86834]]

widely available in the market. While today's action allows less time 
than the five-year transition time estimated by a manufacturer in 
information claimed as CBI for a full transition of R-404A equipment to 
R-744, EPA believes based on experience to date and the market built by 
the demand created by the Coca-Cola Company will allow for a faster 
transition than the commenter estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Coca-Cola, 2014. ``Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free 
Cooler Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metrics 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.
    \139\ Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, 2015. ``Coca 
Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global refrigeration target.'' March 
20, 2015. This document is accessible at www.racplus.com/news/cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global-refrigerationtarget/8680290.article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information claimed as CBI and other comments as 
discussed above, we find that a January 1, 2021, change of status date 
is necessary to provide a reasonable yet expeditious time for the 
transition to acceptable alternatives to occur.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in the refrigerants industry. Comments addressed 
the proposed status change date of January 1, 2021, the refrigerants 
proposed for status change, the technical challenges of using 
refrigerants remaining acceptable and other refrigerants that may be 
listed as acceptable in the future, energy efficiency, and other rules 
and standards that may apply to equipment in this end-use category.
    Commenters included AHRI, an industry organization; Arkema and 
Chemours, chemical producers; CARB, a state agency; EIA, NRDC and IGSD, 
environmental organizations; and Stoelting, Tecumseh and UTC, equipment 
and component manufacturers. Additional comments claimed as CBI were 
submitted.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
    Comment: UTC was in general agreement with how EPA defined this 
end-use category, but pointed out that ``soft-serve and other frozen 
dairy treats may not fall within the technical definition of ice-cream 
due to milk fat content.'' They also stated that ``it appears a creamer 
dispenser (refrigerated unit dispensing creamer in a dosed amount) and 
bulk milk dispensers (refrigerated unit holding a container of milk 
that dispenses through a small nozzle when the handle is lifted) would 
fit in this category as well.''
    Response: As noted previously in section VI.A.7.a.i, EPA agrees 
that the type of equipment identified by the commenter falls within 
this end-use.
    Comment: UTC, Refrigerants Naturally!, Chemours, EIA, NRDC, and 
IGSD agreed with EPA's proposal to change the status of refrigerants 
for this end-use category.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenters for the comments.
    Comment: AHRI and UTC both claimed that the number of currently 
listed acceptable substitutes is limited and that EPA should list R-
448A and R-449A as acceptable for this end-use category. Tecumseh 
suggested listing those two refrigerants and R-452A as acceptable.
    Response: As shown in Table 12, multiple refrigerants are 
acceptable for this end-use category. After the proposal was published, 
but before the comment period closed, EPA added another alternative to 
the list of acceptable refrigerants in this end-use category, 
specifically R-513A. R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, and R-452A have been 
submitted to the SNAP Program for review. Concurrent with this rule, 
EPA is finding R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B acceptable for new 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA has not 
proposed or made a final listing decision for R-452A in the 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment end-use category. 
If in the future we decide to list this as acceptable, it would be 
included in a Notice of Acceptability published in the Federal 
Register. Likewise, if we were to propose finding it acceptable, 
subject to use restrictions or unacceptable, we would publish a 
separate proposed rule.
    Comment: Responding to EPA's statement in the preamble to the 
proposed rule that currently HCs such as R-290, R-600a and R-443A are 
not listed as acceptable in this end-use category, UTC and Stoelting 
identified technical challenges affecting the potential use of these 
refrigerants in this end-use category. EIA recommended that EPA find R-
290 and R-600a acceptable, subject to use conditions as soon as 
possible. They indicated that manufacturers are already making R-290 
refrigerated dispensing systems abroad pointing to equipment offered by 
several companies, and felt this demonstrates a change in status is 
feasible.
    Response: EPA did not propose and is not taking action regarding 
the use of HCs in this end-use category at this time. In any future 
action EPA may take addressing the use of HCs in this end-use, EPA 
would consider relevant technical information such as the availability 
of equipment operating on R-290 in markets outside the United States.
    Comment: An initiative of a group of companies encouraged EPA to 
find HFC-134a unacceptable ``for systems where there are 
environmentally safe, low GWP alternatives.'' Information claimed as 
CBI indicated that a manufacturer plans to transition from HFC-134a 
after converting its R-404A equipment.
    Response: EPA did not propose to change the status of HFC-134a for 
this end-use category and we are not taking such action today. While we 
recognize that there are plans to transition from HFC-134a by at least 
one manufacturer, the information provided did not offer sufficient 
basis to determine when alternatives would be available for the limited 
applications within this end-use category that rely on HFC-134a.
ii. Change of Status Date
    Comment: Three commenters submitted information regarding the 
technical challenges of using certain refrigerants that have been 
submitted to EPA for review but for which EPA has not made a listing 
decision. UTC stated that the time to transition different products 
``may vary based on technical challenges with product sensory 
characteristics and differences in dispense rate requirements.'' They 
indicated that a challenge for using R-448A, which they proposed should 
be found acceptable, existed with the compressor discharge temperature 
which might reduce the compressor reliability. Stoelting requested an 
extension (of unspecified time) or exemption to continue to use R-404A. 
They stated that ``R-448 or R-449 have an inherent temperature glide of 
8 [deg]F [4.4 [deg]C] or more'' that causes two issues. They stated 
that they could not ``account for the fractionation'' of such 
refrigerants in equipment with flooded evaporators. They also stated 
that meeting the temperature variances required (+/-1 [deg]F [0.56 
[deg]C]) would be difficult and lead to a ``too cold/firm'' region and 
a ``too warm/soft'' region. Information submitted and claimed as CBI 
estimated that at least three years was needed to transition to R-448A, 
if it is found acceptable.
    Response: EPA recognizes that challenges exist with any transition 
and based on the technical information provided for this end-use EPA is 
establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2021. EPA notes that 
there are refrigerants currently listed as acceptable that would 
alleviate or eliminate the concern regarding temperature glide that 
Stoelting mentioned. For instance, R-744 as a pure substance does not 
have a temperature glide, although separate limitations were discussed 
by UTC as explained in the following comment.

[[Page 86835]]

Also, while R-450A is zeotropic, it has a low temperature glide that 
presumably can be addressed based on past experience with R-404A, 
another low-glide zeotropic blend. In addition, R-513A is an azeotrope 
with no temperature glide.
    With respect to the other issues concerning R-448A discussed by 
UTC, concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing R-448A as acceptable in 
this end-use. As noted above, information provided and claimed as CBI 
indicates a transition to R-448A is feasible by the change of status 
date established.
    Comment: UTC emphasized that sufficient time is needed to 
transition equipment to refrigerants not subject to status change. They 
described multiple challenges with using R-744, which is currently 
listed as acceptable. One challenge they described is the additional 
space required in the heat exchangers and that this additional space 
requirement must be balanced with the need to minimize increases in 
footprints which would be difficult to accommodate in many foodservice 
settings that utilize this equipment. The commenter further indicated 
the challenges with ``compressor availability, compressor operating 
envelope, refrigerant controls availability (in our capacity range), 
footprint, and cost.'' Another challenge with R-744 noted was the need 
to design for higher operating pressures and a more complex cooling 
cycle. The commenter also stated that additional work on the compressor 
designs was needed to develop models that are suited for the varying 
cooling demands of this type of equipment as opposed to other 
applications where R-744 compressors are used. For example, UTC stated 
that ``R-744 compressors have been traditionally designed for 
continuous, longer run system.'' CARB however stated that R-744 is 
currently available for retail food refrigeration, arguing for a 2020 
status change date, while information claimed as CBI indicated at least 
one equipment manufacturer was already planning to convert to R-744 in 
the future. This information claimed as CBI by an equipment 
manufacturer estimated that they would need at least a five-year 
timeframe to transition to R-744.
    Response: EPA agrees that some challenges exist when converting to 
R-744, but the technical progress to date in using this refrigerant in 
various applications indicates these challenges can be met by the 
change of status date. Although some components are available, R-744 
components have not yet become widely available and could not currently 
satisfy the entire market for this end-use category by CARB's suggested 
January 1, 2020 date. Nonetheless, although specific comments 
suggesting the solutions to the technical concerns raised were not 
provided, the transition by the Coca-Cola Company and other comments 
indicate that such solutions exist and can be implemented. As discussed 
in section VI.A.7.b.ii above, EPA finds that R-744 will be available 
for most if not all of the equipment in this end-use category by the 
change of status date, and sees various paths forward in the case that 
it is not fully available for all such equipment.
iii. Relationship With Other Rules
    Comment: In response to EPA's request for comment on applicable DOE 
energy conservation standards for equipment in this end-use category, 
UTC indicated that there are currently no DOE directives or 
requirements for this equipment. They also indicated the American 
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) was developing a 
test standard for this equipment, implying such a standard might form 
the basis of future DOE rulemaking. They also indicated that European 
rules covering ice-cream and shake machines are being drafted.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this information regarding 
the development of testing standards and the current status of DOE and 
European requirements for this equipment. We did not consider possible 
future action by ASTM or DOE in establishing a change of status date 
for this end-use category, but if one or both those actions occur, EPA 
could consider it at that time.
iv. Industry Standards and Codes
    Comment: UTC provided a list of multiple industry standards, 
including ones from the Canadian Standards Association (CSA,) UL, and 
IEC that apply to this equipment. The commenter did not indicate how 
the information was related to the proposal.
    Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the information regarding 
standards.
8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New 
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
a. Background
i. What is the affected end-use?
    Household refrigerators, freezers and combination refrigerator/
freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may 
be used outside the home. The designs and refrigeration capacities of 
equipment vary widely. Household refrigerators and freezers are 
composed of three main categories of equipment. Household freezers only 
offer storage space at freezing temperatures, while household 
refrigerators only offer storage space at non-freezing temperatures. 
Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most 
common. In addition to the three main categories of equipment, other 
small refrigerated household appliances exist (i.e., chilled kitchen 
drawers, wine coolers, and mini-fridges) that are also within this end 
use. Household refrigerators and freezers have all refrigeration 
components integrated, and for the smallest types, the refrigeration 
circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These systems are charged with 
refrigerant at the factory and typically require only an electricity 
supply to begin operation.
    The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration provides an overview of 
food preservation in regards to household refrigerators and freezers. 
Generally, a storage temperature between 32 and 39 [deg]F (0 to 3.9 
[deg]C) is desirable for preserving fresh food. Humidity and higher or 
lower temperatures are more suitable for certain foods and beverages. 
Wine chillers, for example, are frequently used for storing wine, and 
have slightly higher optimal temperatures from 45 to 65 [deg]F (7.2 to 
18.3 [deg]C). Freezers and combination refrigerator-freezers that are 
designed to store food for long durations have temperatures below 8 
[deg]F (-13.3 [deg]C) and are designed to hold temperatures near 0 to 5 
[deg]F (-17.7 to -15 [deg]C). In single-door refrigerators, the optimum 
conditions for food preservation are typically warmer than this due to 
the fact that food storage is not intended for long-term storage.
    DOE energy conservation standards apply to household refrigerators 
and freezers, as discussed in section VI.A.9.b.ii.
i. What refrigerants are used in household refrigerators and freezers?
    The following alternatives are currently acceptable for new 
household refrigerators and freezers: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-
152a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
290, R-404A, 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-427A, R-428A, R-434A, 
R-437A, R-438A, R-441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-507A, R-600a, RS-24 (2002 
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. Of 
those, R-290, R-441A and R-600a are acceptable, subject to use 
conditions.

[[Page 86836]]

    Currently, the most commonly used refrigerant in the United States 
for household refrigerators and freezers is R-134a, an HFC with a GWP 
of 1,430. However, throughout many parts of the world, R-600a with a 
GWP of approximately four is the most commonly used refrigerant and 
there are ongoing efforts to help facilitate the adoption and continued 
use of R-600a in this industry globally.\140\ The European Union (EU) 
banned the use of HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 (which includes R-
134a) for household refrigerators and freezers as of January 1, 
2015.\141\ R-600a has been used in Europe for approximately two 
decades. Throughout parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, R-600a is 
the dominant refrigerant for this end-use. In its 2014 assessment 
report,\142\ the TEAP's Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps 
Technical Options Committee (RTOC) projects that by 2020 about 75 
percent of new household refrigerators globally will use R-600a, a 
small percentage will use HFOs, and the rest will use HFC-134a. There 
are other alternatives that may be determined to work well in this end 
use. For example, R-450A and R-513A, which EPA has listed as acceptable 
for use in this end-use (79 FR 62863, October 21, 2014; 80 FR 42053, 
July 16, 2015, respectively), were designed to match the 
characteristics and performance of HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ ORNL, 2015. ORNL's JUMP Challenge: JUMP in to Advance Tech 
Innovation! Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. November 17, 2015.
    \141\ EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated 
greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. 
Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
    \142\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. Available 
at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to R-600a, EPA previously found a number of other 
flammable HC refrigerants including R-290 and R-441A and R-600a as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions in household refrigerators and 
freezers (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA proposed to 
change as of January 1, 2021, the status of the following refrigerants 
from acceptable to unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-
410B, 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. In this 
action, we are finalizing the status changes as proposed. The change of 
status determinations for new household refrigerators and freezers:

                  Table 13--Change of Status Decisions for Household Refrigerators and Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 End-use                                  Substitutes                       Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household refrigerators and freezers      FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/  Unacceptable as of January
 (new only).                               134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-   1, 2021.
                                           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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants 
for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    Other refrigerants for new household refrigerators and freezers are 
HFC-152a, IKON A, IKON B, THR-02; R-513A, R-450A, R-290, R-441A and R-
600a. In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on the 
environmental and health risks presented by the alternatives that are 
being found unacceptable compared with other alternatives listed as 
acceptable (81 FR 22858; April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical 
support document \143\ that provides the Federal Register citations 
concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 
flammability) for acceptable alternatives as well as those we are 
finding unacceptable for new household refrigerators and freezers may 
be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable through this action 
have insignificant ODP and they have GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990. As 
shown in Table 14, the other alternatives, listed as acceptable or as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, have GWP ranging from three to 
630.

     Table 14--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Household Refrigerators and Freezers \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Refrigerants                 GWP                  ODP                    VOC           Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-441A,            3-560  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..........  Acceptable.
 R-600a, THR-02.
HFC-152a.......................             124  0........................  No...............  Acceptable.
R-450A, R-513A.................         600-630  0........................  No...............  Acceptable.
HFC-134a.......................           1,430  0........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24         920-1,510  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-
 03.
R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,     1,770-2,630  0........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
 R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/    1,810-2,730  0........................  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
 42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
 422D, R-424A, R-437A, R-438A,
 RS-44 (2003 composition).
R-404A, R-421B, R-507A.........     3,190-3,990  0........................  No...............  Unacceptable.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A.     3,080-3,610  0........................  Yes \4\..........  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.


[[Page 86837]]

    Three substitutes that remain acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are HCs or a blend of HCs. R-290 
and R-600a are VOCs while R-441A is a blend composed primarily of 
compounds that are VOC. EPA's analysis indicates that their use as 
refrigerants in this end-use is not expected to contribute 
significantly to ground level ozone formation.\144\ In the action in 
which EPA listed these refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions (80 FR 19454; April 10, 2015), EPA concluded none of these 
refrigerants as used in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to 
ground-level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that 
are not VOCs or that are specifically excluded from the definition of 
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of 
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to this action are highly volatile and 
typically evaporate or partition to air, rather than contaminating 
surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are expected to be small 
and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of 
the refrigerants that are subject to the status change for this end-
use.
    With the exception of HFC-152a, R-290, R-600a and R-441A, all other 
refrigerants listed as acceptable, including those we are listing as 
unacceptable, are not flammable. R-290 and R-600a, which are HCs, and 
R-441A, which is a blend of HCs, are classified as A3 refrigerants by 
ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, indicating that they have low toxicity and 
high flammability, while HFC-152a is classified as an A2 refrigerant, 
indicating that it has low toxicity and low flammability. To address 
flammability, EPA listed these R-290, R-441A and R-600a as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions. The use conditions include conditions 
consistent with industry standards, limits on charge size, and 
requirements for warnings and markings on equipment to inform consumers 
and technicians of potential flammability hazards. Our assessment and 
listing decisions (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011 and FR 80 19454; 
April 10, 2015) found that the overall risk, including the risk due to 
flammability with the use conditions, is not significantly greater than 
for other refrigerants listed as acceptable at that time. EPA found 
HFC-152a acceptable for new household refrigerators and freezers in the 
original SNAP rule indicating ``[a]lthough HFC-152a is flammable, a 
risk assessment demonstrated it could be used safely in this end-use'' 
(59 FR 13081; March 18, 1994). Toxicity is not a significant concern 
for the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable. Their toxicity is 
comparable to that of other alternatives that are acceptable in this 
end-use. The refrigerants subject to the status change and the 
refrigerants not subject to the status change, if listed under ASHRAE 
34 (2013), are classified as Class A refrigerants (lower toxicity).
    In summary, because the risks other than GWP are not significantly 
different for the other available alternatives than for those we 
proposed to list as unacceptable, and because the GWPs for the 
refrigerants we proposed to list as unacceptable are significantly 
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk, we are listing the 
following refrigerants as unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, 
R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-
410A, R-410B, 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.
ii. When will the status change?
    As proposed, EPA is establishing a change of status date for new 
household refrigerators and freezers of January 1, 2021. There are 
technical challenges that must be met for a safe and smooth transition 
to alternatives, particularly considering the likely use of one or more 
of the flammable alternatives. The primary step that must occur for a 
transition is product design work for alternative refrigerants, drawing 
from current models used both in the United States and elsewhere. For 
those designing with flammable refrigerants, this would include 
complying with the use conditions EPA established when listing those 
refrigerants as acceptable (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011, and FR 80 
1954; April 10, 2015). Although some models have recently and others 
are currently transitioning,
    EPA recognizes that manufacturers will need time to continue 
product design work for alternative refrigerants, drawing from current 
models used both in the United States and elsewhere.
    Household refrigerators are subject to DOE energy conservation 
standards and will need to be tested to demonstrate compliance with 
those standards.\145\ EPA noted in a previous action that ``we do not 
have a practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in 
the overall risk analysis'' but also pointed out that ``[w]e do, 
however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency 
(e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are 
`available.' '' (80 FR 42921; July 20, 2015). Hence, we find that the 
need for household refrigerator and freezers to meet DOE energy 
efficiency standards plays a part in determining the availability of 
alternatives and factors into our decision on the applicable change of 
status date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ DOE's previous energy conservation rulemaking for this 
end-use was finalized in 2011 with a compliance date of September 
15, 2014 (76 FR 57516; September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With a change of status date of 2021, the evidence presented 
indicates that current models--already meeting the current DOE 
standards--when redesigned for alternative refrigerants are expected to 
continue to meet those existing standards. In fact, comments indicate 
an increase in energy efficiency with some of the acceptable 
alternatives, some of which have been implemented in products both in 
the U.S. market and globally. See for example comments from Electrolux 
and NRDC. Furthermore, as the typical compliance period for DOE energy 
efficiency regulations is three years from the date issued, a status 
change date over four years from today gives manufacturers should 
provide a more than adequate period of time to redesign models to meet 
such standards with an alternative refrigerant. This time frame also 
allows manufacturers time to redesign models considering the use 
conditions that must be met if a flammable acceptable alternative is 
chosen, as discussed above.
    We understand however that there may be limitations with regard to 
the availability of testing facilities in the event that, in the midst 
of this implementation of new models with alternative refrigerants, the 
energy efficiency requirements were to change in a manner that required 
redesigning models to meet the new efficiency standards DOE has not 
initiated the process under which new energy efficiency standards would 
be promulgated. Commenters have suggested that this process could begin 
as early as 2017 with an eventual compliance date of 2024 or 2025. 
Therefore, at this point in time it is not evident that there will be 
any constraint on laboratory availability to meet the January 1, 2021, 
status change date in this rule. Should DOE finalize new energy 
efficiency standards for household refrigerators-freezers in the next 
few years, EPA could consider at that time whether laboratory 
availability

[[Page 86838]]

issues might affect the transition to alternative refrigerants by the 
2021 change of status date.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from organizations with various 
interests in the household refrigerators and freezers end-use. Several 
commenters commented on the proposed January 1, 2021, change of status 
date. Other comments focused on substitutes and end-use proposed, 
industry standards and codes, and general comments such as the need for 
technician training.
    Commenters included AHAM, a trade association; and three equipment 
manufacturers, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, and Electrolux. EPA also received 
comments from Arkema and Chemours, chemical producers; NRDC, IGSD and 
EIA, environmental organizations; UL, a safety consulting and 
certification company; and CARB, a state agency.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
    Comment: AHAM noted that although alternatives have been approved 
for and can be used in refrigerators and freezers, the only viable 
alternative is R-600a and there are no available ``drop-ins.'' AHAM 
also noted that while the appliance industry is moving to replace HFC 
refrigerants in their products and has produced and sold hundreds of 
millions of units safely around the world using HC alternatives, 
factories must be reengineered, and education, logistics and disposal 
systems would need to be established to manage the safe transportation, 
servicing and disposal of flammable refrigerants in North America. 
Whirlpool also commented that major manufacturing changes are required 
across the industry to achieve widespread use of flammable 
refrigerants. Three environmental organizations, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA, 
along with a state government agency, CARB, and a chemical producer, 
Chemours, supported EPA's proposal to change the status of HFC-134a in 
this end-use.
    Response: EPA appreciates comments submitted in support of the 
proposed rule and thanks commenters. As to AHAM's comments that there 
are no ``drop-in'' substitutes for this end use, although EPA prefers 
not to use the term ``drop-in,'' it is sometimes used by various 
parties to refer to the circumstance where one refrigerant can be used 
in place of another without any modification to the relevant piece of 
refrigeration equipment. While equipment manufacturers may prefer to 
use HC refrigerants as they do in other markets, EPA believes that R-
450A and R-513A may meet the characteristics that AHAM uses to define 
``drop-in'' replacements. These are non-flammable and were developed to 
have characteristics similar to R-134a. That said, EPA finds that the 
change of status date provides sufficient time for redesigning to use 
HC refrigerants if so preferred by equipment manufacturers.
ii. Change of Status Date
    Comment: Chemours, a chemical producer, supported the change of 
status for the refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable, 
noting that it has sufficient supply of commercial replacement 
solutions with comparable or improved energy efficiency compared to the 
substitutes subject to the proposed status change. UL commented on the 
proposed change of status for HFC-134a for use in this end-use, stating 
it did not expect to be adversely impacted by any testing or retesting 
of refrigerators and freezers due to proposed provision.
    Response: EPA acknowledges UL's statement that under the proposed 
timeline for the change of status of R-134a they do not anticipate any 
difficulty in providing laboratory capacity to perform any testing 
needed for newly designed refrigerators and freezers and we have 
considered this information in determining an appropriate change of 
status date. In addition, we considered whether there was sufficient 
manufacturing capacity for substitutes by Chemours and other chemical 
producers in order to meet the established change of status date and 
determined that production would be more than sufficient for a January 
1, 2021, change of status date.
    Comment: Several commenters commented on the proposed January 1, 
2021, change of status date for household refrigerators and freezers. 
AHAM and Sub Zero suggested that a complete transition date should be 
no earlier than 2024. AHAM noted that, while the industry is moving to 
replace HFC refrigerants in products, this transition process is 
expensive, time consuming, and industry faces technical challenges. 
AHAM and Whirlpool suggested that the proposed change of status date 
would create significant difficulties in designing products with 
flammable refrigerants while also meeting DOE energy conservation 
standards and charge size limitations for flammable refrigerants in the 
UL refrigerators and freezers safety standard. AHAM and Sub Zero 
suggested there would be a small environmental impact from moving the 
change of status date to 2024. Whirlpool also recommended a transition 
date of 2024 due to the design and engineering changes that would be 
necessary. Electrolux noted that they could transition out of HFC based 
refrigerants by January 1, 2021, if the charge size limit on HC 
refrigerants could be increased. NRDC, IGSD, and EIA urged EPA to 
maintain the proposed status change date of January 1, 2021, and noted 
requests for extended delays are completely unwarranted given that 
refrigerator manufacturers have offered models with R-600a for over a 
decade outside the United States.
    Response: EPA appreciates points raised by AHAM, Sub Zero, and 
Whirlpool and understands that challenges exist; however we do not 
agree that additional time beyond what was proposed is needed. We 
understand that time is needed for adapting certain model designs to 
the U.S. market but do not believe the commenters have provided 
sufficient information to indicate that more time than what EPA 
proposed would be needed. Although the comments did not provide a 
detailed analysis of what steps are required to complete a transition 
and how long each step takes, and whether steps can occur 
simultaneously or must occur in series, we find that much component 
equipment development can occur at the same time as other product 
design work. In other words, as certain components become available, 
appropriate units could be redesigned using those components, 
prototypes could be built and tested, and final designs could be 
manufactured. While redesigns and prototypes are developed, additional 
components can be developed as needed for other designs. Indeed, once 
product models are designed, testing and certification could take place 
while additional models are designed.
    We agree with NRDC, IGSD, and EIA that a status change date of 
January 1, 2021, can be met, and will allow sufficient time for 
manufacturers to redesign any products that require additional 
engineering to meet this rule. EPA notes that R-600a is currently being 
used in more than 500 million household refrigerator and freezer units 
worldwide, including some units in the United States.\146\ 
Additionally, although changing the charge size limit for hydrocarbon 
refrigerants as mentioned by Electrolux is beyond the scope of this

[[Page 86839]]

rule, many manufacturers have already identified a portion of their 
products that they could redesign using R-290 under the existing limit. 
EPA notes that refrigeration and AC equipment manufacturers are not 
required to use any of the flammable refrigerants listed as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions in this action; we expect that those who 
choose to do so will plan accordingly for any changes required at the 
factory and in the designs of the products they manufacture. We note 
that R-450A and R-513A, which are not subject to status change, will 
not require as many changes to the equipment design particularly since 
these are nonflammable and operate with similar characteristics to HFC-
134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ (TEAP, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that there would be little environmental 
impact by delaying the change of status date until 2024, we do not 
consider that as part of the analysis for determining the appropriate 
change of status date. We consider environmental effects, as part of 
the SNAP review criteria for determining whether safer alternatives are 
available. Once we have determined that other alternatives can be used 
that pose less risk we look at the technical challenges of a transition 
and the availability of alternatives to identify a reasonable but 
expeditious change of status date that reflects when alternatives can 
be used broadly within the end-use. Regarding Arkema's specific 
suggestion for a change of status date of 2025, EPA does not agree that 
equipment being hermetically sealed justifies a later change of status 
date. As noted, EPA has determined that other alternatives pose less 
risk than those for which the status is being changed can reasonably be 
used earlier than 2025. Even assuming that the commenter is correct 
that alternatives may be used in a manner that would pose even less 
risk at a later date, such an assumption would not justify delaying the 
change of status date. Manufacturers could still choose to manufacture 
new equipment that is hermetically sealed in 2025 and beyond.
iii. Industry Standards and Codes
    Comment: AHAM, Whirlpool, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA discussed charge size 
limitations for flammable refrigerants in the UL refrigerators and 
freezers safety standard. Whirlpool and Electrolux noted the need for a 
new safety standard that would replace the current UL standard that has 
established the charge size limit of HC-based refrigerants to 57 g. 
Electrolux suggested that this charge size limit should be harmonized 
with the IEC 60335-2-40 standard in place in the European Market at 150 
g. Arkema stated that building codes do not yet support use of 
flammable materials at a sufficient charge size. CARB mentioned the 
$5.2 million commitment announced on June 2, 2016, by DOE, AHRI, and 
ASHRAE discussed previously to fund vital research that will establish 
a more robust fact base about the properties and uses of flammable 
refrigerants. This new research program will help provide the technical 
knowledge needed to facilitate and accelerate the safe use of these 
refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD commented that, in addition to finalizing 
the change of status date for HFC-134a in new household refrigerators 
and freezers, EPA should revisit the charge size limit of 57 g for HC 
refrigerants used in any refrigerator, freezer, or combination 
refrigerator and freezer for each circuit. NRDC and IGSD also 
recommended that UL and AHAM ``review the technical justification for 
such a wide gulf between U.S. and international safety standards and 
close it as soon as possible.'' Similarly, EIA commented that ``the 
current UL 250 charge size limit of 57 g of R-600a is effectively and 
unnecessarily prohibiting market penetration of low-GWP hydrocarbon 
systems in the U.S. . . . Even with the current overly restrictive UL 
standard in place, manufacturers have R-600a based systems on the U.S. 
market, though the charge size is a major restriction to refrigerator 
volume, or substantially increases the price if dual compressor systems 
are used to make a standard sized U.S. refrigerator.'' EIA recommended 
that, while the UL 471 harmonization process to replace UL 250 
continues, EPA should recognize the 150 g charge size limit under the 
currently recognized International Electrochemical Commission (IEC) 
standard (IEC 60335-2-89) as an acceptable use condition for the sale 
of household refrigerators and freezers using HCs in the United States. 
EIA believes this will help support the proposed change of status date 
of January 1, 2021, for HFC-134a. EIA referenced their October 2015 
petition to the Agency requesting that EPA incorporate by reference the 
IEC standard 60335-2-89 as the basis for charge size limitations as use 
conditions for R-290 and R-600a in household refrigerators and 
freezers.
    Response: EPA understands the interest in reconsidering safe charge 
limits and the potential for UL and IEC standards to be harmonized. EPA 
understands that there are efforts in this direction underway. EPA is 
encouraged by the June 2016 announcement by DOE, ASHRAE and AHRI and 
understands that other stakeholders have been invited to join this 
effort. While there may be opportunities to make changes to applicable 
standards, and subsequently change the use conditions that currently 
apply, such changes are beyond the scope of this rule. If and when 
those standards are harmonized, EPA could consider whether to revise 
the SNAP listing consistent with the new standards. This action is 
based on the Agency's view that the other alternatives including those 
acceptable to use conditions are feasible for use, as demonstrated by 
several manufacturers, including GE and BOSCH. We understand that other 
manufacturers are earlier in the process of designing equipment using 
alternatives that remain acceptable and EPA has established a change of 
status date of January 1, 2021 to allow time for manufacturers to 
address the technical challenges.
iv. Other Suggestions or Requests
    Comment: AHAM recommended that service personnel must be trained to 
adequately protect themselves and consumers from activities that may be 
routine for handling equipment with non-flammable refrigerants but that 
are not protective when servicing equipment with flammable HC 
refrigerants. AHAM commented that repairing leaks or replacing/filling 
refrigerant lines will involve new training techniques that must be 
developed and communicated.
    Response: EPA is not taking action in this rulemaking regarding the 
use of flammable refrigerants for this end-use and thus this comment is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note that we are 
aware that at least two organizations--RSES and the ESCO Institute--
have developed technician training programs in collaboration with 
refrigeration equipment manufacturers and users that address safe use 
of flammable refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA has reviewed 
several training programs provided as part of SNAP submissions from 
persons interested in flammable refrigerant substitutes. The Agency 
intends to update the test bank for technician certification under CAA 
section 608 as we have done previously, and will consider including 
additional questions on flammable refrigerants. By adding such 
questions to the test bank, EPA would supplement but would not replace 
technician training programs currently provided by non-government 
entities. EPA will seek additional information and guidance on how best 
to incorporate this content through a

[[Page 86840]]

separate process outside the scope of this final rule.

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning

1. Background
    The vehicle types that are addressed in this action include limited 
types of HD vehicles, specifically, MDPVs,\147\ HD trucks, and complete 
HD vans.\148\ EPA has previously listed HFO-1234yf as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, in light-duty (LD) motor vehicles and trucks 
(76 FR 17490; March 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1801-03.
    \148\ MVAC systems provide passenger comfort cooling for LD cars 
and trucks, HD vehicles (large pick-ups, delivery trucks, 
recreational vehicles, and semi-trucks), off-road vehicles, buses, 
and rail vehicles. EPA is not addressing other types of HD vehicles, 
off-road vehicles, buses, or trains in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of HD vehicles addressed in this action are in many ways 
more similar to LD vehicles than they are to the HD vehicles with a 
higher gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the 
combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck. 
Table 15 outlines the HD vehicle weight classifications commonly used. 
MDPVs,\149\ HD pickup trucks, and HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles 
with GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 lb. These vehicle types are similar 
to LD vehicles technologically and most are manufactured in a similar 
manner to LD vehicles by companies with major light-duty markets in the 
United States.\150\ Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles 
(FCA) produce approximately100 percent of HD pickup trucks and 
approximately 95 percent of HD vans, with Daimler and Nissan producing 
the remaining approximately five percent of HD vans.\151\ In many 
cases, these types of HD vehicles are versions of their LD 
counterparts.\152\ For example, the Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, and Ford 
F-150 are the LD counterparts of the HD Silverado 2500/3500, Ram 2500/
3500, and Ford F-250/F-350/F-450 pickup trucks.\153\ The primary 
difference between HD pickup trucks and vans and their LD counterpart 
vehicles is that HD pickups and vans are occupational or work vehicles 
that are designed for much higher towing and payload capabilities 
compared to LD pickups and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ MDPVs are classified as HD vehicles based on their GVWR, 
but due to their similarities to LD vehicles they are subject to the 
GHG emissions standards established for LD trucks.
    \150\ This is more broadly true for HD pickup trucks than vans 
because every manufacturer of HD pickup trucks also makes LD pickup 
trucks, while only some heavy-duty van manufacturers also make 
light-duty vans (80 FR 40148; July 13, 2015).
    \151\ EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed 
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. 
EPA-420-D-15-900. June 2015. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d15900.pdf.
    \152\ ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation: 
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van 
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available online at: 
http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiency-technology.
    \153\ ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor 
Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. 
Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 
2015.

                                                         Table 15--Vehicle Weight Classification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class                       2b               3                4                5                6                7                8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVWR (lb)........................    8,501-10,000    10,001-14,000    14,001-16,000    16,001-19,500    19,501-26,000    26,001-33,000          >33,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All types of HD vehicles can be sold as ``complete'' or 
``incomplete'' vehicles (76 FR 57259-60; September 15, 2011). Complete 
vehicles are sold by vehicle manufacturers to end-users with no 
secondary manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to 
registration and use. Incomplete vehicles are sold by vehicle 
manufacturers to secondary manufacturers without the primary load-
carrying device or container attached. See section VI.B.1 of the 
proposed rule for additional information on HD vehicles and the vehicle 
types within the MVAC end-use that are addressed in this action.
    Section 608(c) of the CAA prohibits the knowing venting, release or 
disposal of all refrigerants by any person maintaining, servicing, 
repairing or disposing of an appliance or IPR in a manner which permits 
the refrigerant to enter the environment, except for certain substitute 
refrigerants that have been specifically exempted from this venting 
prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2). MVAC end-of-life disposal and 
recycling specifications are also covered under section 608 of the CAA 
and our regulations issued under that section of the Act, which are 
codified at subpart F of 40 CFR part 82. Additionally, CAA section 609 
establishes standards and requirements regarding servicing of MVAC 
systems. Under section 609, no person repairing or servicing motor 
vehicles for consideration \154\ may perform any service on an MVAC 
that involves the refrigerant without properly using approved 
refrigerant recovery or recovery and recycling equipment and no such 
person may perform such service unless such person has been properly 
trained and certified. This action will not have a direct impact on 
EPA's regulations under section 609. For further information on the 
relationship between this action and other federal rules, see section 
VI.B.6 of the proposed rule (81 FR 22866-67; April 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Service for consideration means receiving something of 
worth or value to perform service, whether in money, credit, goods, 
or services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to 
use conditions, in MVAC systems for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 
trucks, and complete HD vans. The use conditions are detailed in 
section VI.B.2.b, ``What are the final use conditions?''. EPA sought 
comment and information on listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to 
use conditions for some incomplete HD vans. One commenter provided 
information to EPA and EPA will consider that information to determine 
whether to take further action regarding the listing of HFO-1234yf for 
use in incomplete HD vans.
    As explained in section VI.B.1, section 608 of the CAA prohibits 
the knowing venting, release or disposal of all refrigerants by any 
person maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance 
or IPR in a manner which permits the refrigerant to enter the 
environment, except for certain substitute refrigerants that have been 
specifically exempted from this venting prohibition. Because HFO-1234yf 
has not been exempted from the venting prohibition in any end use, such 
knowing releases of HFO-1234yf in the course of maintaining, servicing, 
repairing or disposing of MVAC systems of MDVPs, HD pickup trucks, and 
complete HD vans addressed in this action is prohibited.

[[Page 86841]]

a. How does HFO-1234yf compare to other refrigerants for these MVAC 
applications with respect to SNAP criteria?
    Available refrigerants for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 
trucks, and complete HD vans include HFC-134a, HFC-152a,\155\ and 
CO2.\156\ There are also several blend refrigerants that are 
listed as acceptable for new HD MVAC systems, subject to use 
conditions, including the HFC blends SP34E and R-426A (also known as 
RS-24) and the HCFC blends, R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or 
FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-
414B (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known 
as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as 
GHG-HP). HFC-134a is the refrigerant most widely used today in HD MVAC 
systems; however, given the change of status for HFC-134a for LD 
vehicles, it is likely that the manufacturers of these similar vehicle 
types will also consider transitioning to another alternative which is 
listed as acceptable for LD vehicles. All MVAC refrigerants that are 
acceptable for use are listed as acceptable subject to use conditions. 
For each listed refrigerant, the use conditions require labeling and 
the use of unique fittings and are subject to additional use conditions 
mitigating flammability and toxicity as appropriate to the alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final 
rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
    \156\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final 
rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In section VI.B.3 of the proposed rule (81 FR at 22860-65; April 
18, 2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health 
properties of HFO-1234yf and the available alternative in this end-use 
in this action. In addition, EPA's risk assessments for HFO-1234yf and 
a technical support document \157\ that provides the Federal Register 
citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, 
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the relevant 
end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). In summary, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of one to four. HFO-1234yf 
has a GWP similar to or lower than the GWP of other alternatives for 
the HD vehicle types addressed in this action. For example, its GWP is 
significantly lower than that of HFC-134a, the refrigerant most widely 
used in these vehicles today, which has a GWP of 1,430. HFC-152a,\158\ 
and CO2\159\ have GWPs of 124 and one, respectively. The 
refrigerant blends acceptable for use in MVAC systems for the HD 
vehicle types addressed in this action have GWPs ranging from 1 to 
1,510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
    \158\ HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final 
rule published June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33304).
    \159\ CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G; final 
rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33315).

    Table 16--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of HFO-1234yf Compared to Other Refrigerants in MVAC Systems of Newly
                       Manufactured MDPVs, HD Pickup Trucks, and Complete HD Vans \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Refrigerants               GWP                  ODP                  VOC status        Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFO-1234yf.....................          1-4  0..........................  No................  Acceptable,
                                                                                                subject to use
                                                                                                conditions.
CO2, HFC-152a, HFC-134a........      1-1,430  0..........................  No................  Acceptable.
IKON A, R-416A, R-426A, SP34E..     30-1,510  0-Not public \3\...........  Yes \4\...........  Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOC.

    HFO-1234yf does not deplete the ozone layer. Likewise, HFC-134a, 
HFC-152a, CO2 and the HFC blends SP34E and R-426A do not 
deplete the ozone layer; the HCFC blends have ODPs ranging from 0.012 
to 0.056. HFO-1234yf, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, and CO2 are exempt 
from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 
The HFC blends and some of the HCFC blends have one or more components 
that are VOCs and that are not exempt from the definition in 40 CFR 
51.100(s).
    A potential environmental impact of HFO-1234yf is its atmospheric 
decomposition to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA, CF3COOH). TFA is 
a strong acid that may accumulate on soil, on plants, and in aquatic 
ecosystems over time and that may have the potential to adversely 
impact plants, animals, and ecosystems.\160\ Simulations have found 
that the amount of TFA in rainfall produced from a transition of all 
mobile air conditioners in the continental United States to HFO-1234yf 
has been estimated to be double or more the values observed in the 
United States in 2009 from all sources, natural and artificial (i.e., 
HFC-134a) sources.\161\ In comparison, the amount of TFA produced from 
HFO-1234yf is expected to be higher than that of other fluorinated 
refrigerants in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Other fluorinated compounds also decompose into TFA, 
including HFC-134a.
    \161\ Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North 
America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-
1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental 
Science & Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the 2011 listing decision for HFO-1234yf in LD 
vehicles, EPA analyzed potential TFA concentrations from a full 
transition to HFO-1234yf in all MVAC applications, not limited to LD 
vehicles.162 163 164 165 166 The analysis

[[Page 86842]]

found a maximum projected concentration of TFA in rainwater of 
approximately 1,700 ng/L. This maximum projected concentration 
identified in EPA's analysis, 1700 ng/L,\167\ was roughly 34 percent 
higher than that projected in a 2009 peer reviewed article.\168\ The 
differences in projected TFA concentrations in water is a reflection of 
EPA's reliance on higher emission estimates.\169\ Even when relying on 
more conservative emission estimates, a concentration of 1700 ng/L 
corresponds to roughly \1/600\th of the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-
Level (NOAEL) for the most sensitive algae species, which is also well 
below the NOAEL for the most sensitive aquatic animal species.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the 
Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA 
on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
    \163\ ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions.
    \164\ ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the Vintaging Model that 
Impacted HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimates.
    \165\ ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of 
HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 
Communities, Soil and Plants, and Local Air Quality.
    \166\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected 
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 
concentrations.
    \167\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected 
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 
concentrations.
    \168\ Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North 
America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-
1234yf), a potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental 
Science & Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
    \169\ ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected 
maximum TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone 
concentrations.
    \170\ ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the 
Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA 
on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the analysis conducted in support of the 
2011 listing decision, which was based on conservative emissions 
assumptions and a transition from HFC-134a to HFO-1234yf for all MVAC 
systems (not limited to LD vehicles), and the research that has been 
conducted since, EPA concludes that the use of HFO-1234yf in the HD 
vehicle types addressed in this action will not pose a significant risk 
to the environment from atmospheric decomposition to TFA.
    HFO-1234yf is a flammable refrigerant classified as A2L under 
ASHRAE 34-2013. HFC-134a and CO2 are nonflammable 
refrigerants, while HFC-152a is slightly more flammable than HFO-1234yf 
with an ASHRAE classification of A2. The blends listed as acceptable 
are not flammable.
    EPA compared worker exposures to a workplace exposure limit of 250 
ppm \171\ over an 8-hour time-weighted average for long-term 
occupational exposure to HFO-1234yf. For short-term occupational 
exposure to HFO-1234yf, we compared worker exposure to an acute 
exposure limit of 98,211 ppm, divided by a margin of exposure of 30, 
for a value of 3,270 ppm over 30 minutes.172 173 Concerning 
workplace exposure, we expect that professional technicians have proper 
training and certification and have the proper equipment and knowledge 
to minimize their risks due to exposure to refrigerant from an MVAC 
system. Thus, worker exposure to HFO-1234yf is expected to be low. If 
workers service MVAC systems using certified refrigerant recovery 
equipment after receiving training and testing, exposure levels to HFO-
1234yf are estimated to be on the order of 4 to 8.5 ppm on an 8-hour 
time-weighted average (as compared with a 250 ppm workplace exposure 
limit \174\) and 122 ppm on a 30-minute average (as compared with a 
short-term exposure level of 98,211 ppm divided by a margin of exposure 
of 30, for a value of 3270 ppm over 30 minutes 
175 176).177 178 We also analyzed exposure levels 
during manufacture and final disposition at vehicle end-of-life, and 
found that they would be no higher than 28 ppm on a 15-minute average 
or 8.5 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average.\179\ The manufacture, 
use, and disposal or recycling of HFO-1234yf MVAC systems are not 
expected to present a toxicity risk to workers. Other alternatives such 
as HFC-134a and HFC-152a also do not present a toxicity risk to workers 
in the same scenarios; therefore, HFO-1234yf

[[Page 86843]]

poses the same or less risk than other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from the study, ``An 
Inhalation Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf 
(2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood 
concentrations between animals and humans, and a margin of exposure 
or collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 
were assigned for animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for 
variability within the human population. The long-term workplace 
exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm (animal exposure) 
x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) x \1/3\ 
(UF for animal to human extrapolation) x \1/10\ (UF for variability 
within the human population) exposure) = 250 ppm. This value was 
compared against 8-hour average concentrations. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664-0036 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
    \172\ This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm from the study, 
``Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in 
rats,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0020 through-0020.4, a factor of 1.9 to 
account for differences in blood concentrations between animals and 
humans and a margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor of 
30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human 
extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the human population. 
The short-term workplace exposure value was calculated as follows: 
51,690 ppm (animal exposure) x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human 
exposure/animal exposure) = 98,211 ppm This value was then divided 
by the expected exposure in each scenario, and compared against the 
target margin of exposure of 30. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036 and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
    \173\ For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure limits of 500 
ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm over 30 minutes to evaluate risks 
for these same time periods. These are based on the 8-hr Workplace 
Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) for HFO-1234yf and for short-
term exposure, assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm from 
the study, ``Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-
1234yf in rats.'' Note that EPA disagrees with the finding that the 
acute inhalation toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this 
study to show adverse effects at all levels because of the presence 
of grey discoloration in the lungs of the test animals. In order to 
ensure sufficient protection, EPA's risk assessment used a NOAEL 
from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an acute study.
    \174\ This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from the study, ``An 
Inhalation Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf 
(2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account for differences in blood 
concentrations between animals and humans, and a margin of exposure 
or collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 
were assigned for animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for 
variability within the human population. The long-term workplace 
exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm (animal exposure) 
x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) x \1/3\ 
(UF for animal to human extrapolation) x \1/10\ (UF for variability 
within the human population) exposure) = 250 ppm. This value was 
compared against 8-hour average concentrations. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0664-0036 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
    \175\ This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm from the study, 
``Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in 
rats,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0020 through-0020.4, a factor of 1.9 to 
account for differences in blood concentrations between animals and 
humans and a margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor of 
30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human 
extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the human population. 
The short-term workplace exposure value was calculated as follows: 
51,690 ppm (animal exposure) x 1.9 (ratio of estimated human 
exposure/animal exposure) = 98,211 ppm. This value was then divided 
by the expected exposure in each scenario, and compared against the 
target margin of exposure of 30. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036 and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
    \176\ For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure limits of 500 
ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm over 30 minutes to evaluate risks 
for these same time periods. These are based on the 8-hr Workplace 
Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) for HFO-1234yf and for short-
term exposure, assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm from 
the study, ``Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity study with HFO-
1234yf in rats.'' Note that EPA disagrees with the finding that the 
acute inhalation toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this 
study to show adverse effects at all levels because of the presence 
of grey discoloration in the lungs of the test animals. In order to 
ensure sufficient protection, EPA's risk assessment used a NOAEL 
from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an acute study.
    \177\ EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07-0601. Available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-
0036.
    \178\ ICF International, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 
CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. 
Available online at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038.
    \179\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in section VI.B.3 of the proposed rule (81 FR at 
22860-65; April 18, 2016), to evaluate environmental, flammability, and 
toxicity risks resulting from the use of HFO-1234yf in new MDPVs, HD 
pickup trucks, and complete HD vans, the Agency relied on EPA's 
analysis conducted in support of the 2011 listing decision for HFO-
1234yf for LD vehicles. EPA was able to rely on the 2011 analysis of 
HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles in support of this rule because the MVAC 
systems, vehicle designs, and the potential for exposure for the HD 
vehicle types for which EPA is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, in this action are identical or very similar 
to those of LD vehicles. In addition, we considered risk assessments 
performed by OEMs and independent consultants on the use of HFO-1234yf 
in LD vehicles through SAE Cooperative Research Programs (CRPs) and 
found these were consistent with our analysis. Based on that analysis, 
at proposal, EPA concluded HFO-1234yf did not pose a significantly 
greater due to environmental effects, flammability or toxicity than the 
other alternatives when used in accordance with use conditions 
established as part of the listing decision. The refrigerants to which 
HFO-1234yf was compared in the 2011 action for LD vehicles are the same 
refrigerants available for use in the vehicle types included in this 
action.
    Based on the consideration of all of SNAP criteria, EPA has 
determined that HFO-1234yf does not pose significantly greater risk 
than the other alternatives, when used in accordance with use 
conditions, for use in newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and 
complete HD vans. Further information on these analyses and EPA's risk 
assessments are available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663).
b. What are the final use conditions?
    All MVAC refrigerants listed as acceptable are subject to use 
conditions requiring labeling and the use of unique fittings. EPA is 
listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, because 
the use conditions are necessary to ensure that use of HFO-1234yf will 
not have a significantly greater overall impact on human health and the 
environment than other alternatives for use in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, 
and complete HD vans. EPA is requiring the same use conditions for HFO-
1234yf in these HD vehicle types as are required for the use of HFO-
1234yf in newly manufactured LD vehicles. Because of the similarities 
in the MVAC systems used for these vehicles, these use conditions will 
ensure use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD 
vans does not pose significantly greater risk than use of other 
alternatives.
    The first use condition requires that MVAC systems designed to use 
HFO-1234yf must meet the requirements of SAE J639, ``Safety Standards 
for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compression Systems.'' This 
standard sets safety standards that include unique fittings; a warning 
label indicating the refrigerant's identity and that it is a flammable 
refrigerant; and requirements for engineering design strategies that 
include a high-pressure compressor cutoff switch and pressure relief 
devices. This use condition also requires that for connections with 
refrigerant containers for use in professional servicing, use fittings 
must be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised January 2013), which 
specifies quick-connect fittings that are different from those for any 
other refrigerant. The low-side service port and connections will have 
an outside diameter of 14 mm (0.551 inches) and the high-side service 
port will have an outside diameter of 17 mm (0.669 inches), both 
accurate to within 2 mm. Under SAE J2844 (revised January 2013), 
containers of HFO-1234yf for use in professional servicing of MVAC 
systems must have a left-handed screw valve with a diameter of 0.5 
inches and Acme (trapezoidal) thread with 16 threads per inch. The SAE 
standards did not include and EPA did not receive a submission for 
unique fittings for small containers of HFO-1234yf refrigerant prior to 
the publication of the proposed rule.
    Based on EPA's analysis of the safety study and consistent with the 
conclusion EPA drew at the time of EPA's listing decision for HFO-
1234yf in LD vehicles relied, EPA believes that the safety requirements 
that are included in SAE J639 sufficiently mitigate risks of both HF 
generation and refrigerant ignition (e.g., flammability and toxicity) 
(March 29, 2011; 76 FR 17488) for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete 
HD vans subject to this action. HFO-1234yf is mildly flammable (class 
2L) and, like other fluorinated refrigerants, can decompose to form the 
toxic compound HF when exposed to flame or to sufficient heat. For 
example, SAE J639 provides for a pressure relief device designed to 
minimize direct impingement of the refrigerant and oil on hot surfaces 
and for design of the refrigerant circuit and connections to avoid 
refrigerant entering the passenger cabin. The pressure release device 
ensures that pressure in the system will not reach an unsafe level that 
might cause an uncontrolled leak of refrigerant, such as if the AC 
system is overcharged. The pressure release device will reduce the 
likelihood that refrigerant leaks would reach hot surfaces that might 
lead to either ignition or formation of HF. Designing the refrigerant 
circuit and connections to avoid refrigerant entering the passenger 
cabin ensures that if there is a leak, the refrigerant is unlikely to 
enter the passenger cabin. Keeping refrigerant out of the passenger 
cabin minimizes the possibility that there would be sufficient levels 
of refrigerant to reach flammable concentrations or that HF would be 
formed and transported where passengers might be exposed.
    The second use condition requires the manufacturer of MVAC systems 
and vehicles to conduct Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as 
provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009) and keep records of the FMEA on 
file for three years from the date of creation. SAE J1739 (adopted 
2009) describes a FMEA as ``a systematic group of activities intended 
to: (a) Recognize and evaluate the potential failure of a product/
process and the effects and causes of that failure, (b) identify 
actions that could eliminate or reduce the change of the potential 
failure occurring, and (c) document the process.'' Through the FMEA, 
OEMs determine the appropriate protective strategies necessary to 
ensure the safe use of HFO-1234yf across their vehicle fleet. It is 
standard industry practice to perform the FMEA and to keep it on file 
while the vehicle is in production and for several years afterwards. As 
with the previous use condition, this use condition is intended to 
ensure that new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans 
manufactured with HFO-1234yf MVAC systems are specifically designed to 
minimize release of the refrigerant into the passenger cabin or onto 
hot surfaces that might result in ignition or in generation of HF.
c. When will the listing apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017. Based on 
information the Agency possessed at the time of the proposal and 
additional information submitted during the comment period regarding 
the technical feasibility of transitioning the fleet of HD vehicles and 
refrigerant supply, we conclude that this date, the same as the 
effective date of this regulation, allows for the safe use of this 
substitute at the earliest opportunity.

[[Page 86844]]

3. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received comments from organizations with various interests in 
the MVAC industry on the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf as acceptable, 
subject to use conditions, in newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 
trucks, and complete HD vans. All commenters supported the proposed 
listing decision and effective date of 30 days after date of 
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. However, EIA raised 
concerns about continued growth of the use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC 
refrigerant based on environmental impacts. Some commenters indicated 
that the industry is already in the process of transitioning to HFO-
1234yf in response to EPA's Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule and 
policy incentives. One commenter also indicated that production 
capacity of HFO-1234yf is sufficient to meet the increased demand under 
this rule. Other comments were in reference to the environmental 
impacts of the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf, the relationship of the 
proposed rule with other federal rules, and status changes for R-134a 
in end uses beyond LD vehicles.
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), a trade 
association, submitted comments on behalf of twelve car and light truck 
manufacturers including BMW Group (BMW), FCA, Ford Motor Company, 
General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes[hyphen]Benz 
USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, Toyota, Volkswagen Group and 
Volvo Cars. EPA also received comments from two chemical producers, 
Chemours and Honeywell; three environmental organizations, NRDC, IGSD, 
and EIA; and a state agency, CARB.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
a. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: AAM, Chemours, Honeywell, NRDC, IGSD, EIA, and CARB 
supported the listing of HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions, in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. AAM 
commented that their member companies have been adopting HFO-1234yf for 
passenger cars and light duty trucks and would like to make use of HFO-
1234yf for other vehicle types.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support for finding HFO-1234yf as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as proposed.
    Comment: EIA and NRDC commented that EPA should list HFO-12134yf in 
all types of on-road and off-road vehicles, rather than only in MDPVs, 
HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. To support their argument, the 
commenters stated that these additional vehicle types are not 
materially different.
    Response: EPA appreciates EIA's suggestions regarding the listing 
of HFO-1234yf for use in HD vehicle types not covered in this rule and 
will take them into consideration as the Agency considers any 
additional listing changes under the SNAP program.
b. SNAP Review Criteria
    Comment: AAM and Chemours supported EPA's use of the 2011 analysis 
of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles to support the listing of HFO-1234yf in 
the HD vehicles in this action. AMM commented that it is ``appropriate 
for EPA to have applied the HFO-1234yf risk analysis performed for 
light duty vehicles to these additional categories of vehicles, which 
do not pose significantly higher risks.'' Additionally, Chemours 
commented that EPA's use of the 2011 analysis was reasonable because 
the systems evaluated are very similar to light duty systems.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support.
    Comment: EIA commented on the environmental impacts of the 
atmospheric decomposition of HFO-1234yf to TFA. EIA commented that the 
studies EPA relied upon to support the proposed listing of HFO-1234yf 
``projected maximum rainwater concentrations of TFA from certain 
emission assumptions, but did not ``take into account the much higher 
potential for high levels of accumulation of TFA in urban surface and 
landscape waters, particularly those bodies where inflows of water 
accumulate but have little or no outlet other than evaporation.'' EIA 
cited a 2015 Peking University \180\ study showing increases in TFA 
concentrations between 2002 and 2012 in urban landscape waters, other 
water bodies, and snow samples in the region in and around Beijing. EIA 
stated that ``more research is needed to understand whether continued 
growth in automobile and HFC consumption and the transition of this 
sector and others to HFO-1234yf would lead to concentrations of TFA 
that could pose a significant risk to aquatic ecosystems.'' EIA also 
recommended that EPA conduct similar studies on TFA concentrations in 
bodies of water (e.g., vernal pools) in the United States, given that 
they are critical to the life cycle of amphibians, reptiles, insects, 
and other aquatic animals, and to contact the authors of the Peking 
University study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, J. Hu, and 
J. Zhang: A 17-fold increase of trifluoroacetic acid in landscape 
waters of Beijing, China during the last decade, Chemosphere, 129, 
110-117, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by 
EIA on the atmospheric decomposition of HFO-1234yf to TFA. EPA's 
analysis was based on conservative emissions assumptions and a 
transition from HFC-134a to HFO-1234yf for all MVAC systems. As 
mentioned previously, even when relying on these conservative emission 
estimates, a concentration of 1700 ng/L corresponds to roughly 1/600th 
of the NOAEL for the most sensitive algae species, which is also well 
below the NOAEL for the most sensitive aquatic animal species.
    Research on TFA has been conducted since the 2011 final rule 
listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable for LD vehicles and the information 
shows no greater risk than our earlier analysis. As EPA indicated in 
their comments, the 2015 study by Zhai et al. reported a 17-fold 
increase in TFA concentration in landscape waters in Beijing, China, 
over the period 2002-2012. The authors associated the increase of TFA 
concentrations with the increased HFC-134a emissions in China (factor 
of 5.5 from 2005 to 2015) although no model evaluation was conducted. 
In an earlier combined observation and modeling study in China, only 14 
percent of annual total TFA deposition flux was attributable to HFC-
134a, with the balance from unknown sources.\181\ This value is an 
upper limit because it was obtained using the upper limit of the TFA 
yield from HFC-134a.\182\ Despite the observed 17-fold increase, the 
TFA concentrations measured by Zhai et al. in surface waters (up to 
0.828 [mu]g L-1) and in tap water (0.155 [mu]g 
L-1) in 2012 are comparable to TFA concentrations measured 
in other countries (e.g., 0.012-0.328 [mu]g L-1 in rivers, 
0.037-0.36 [mu]g L-1 in lakes, and 0.016-0.123 [mu]g 
L-1 in drinking water in Switzerland in 1996-1997.\183\ The 
study by Zhai et al. shows

[[Page 86845]]

that the emissive use of HFC-134a and emissions of unknown 
anthropogenic TFA precursors \184\ have increased TFA concentrations in 
surface bodies of water. Since HFO-1234yf has a shorter atmospheric 
lifetime (several days) and higher TFA yield (100%) than HFC-134a, its 
substitution for HFC-134a is expected to further increase TFA 
concentrations in precipitation and in bodies of water near large 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin, 
J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction 
from the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. 
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
    \182\ Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. Tyndall, O. J. 
Nielsen: Comment on ``Airborne Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its Fraction 
from the Degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China'', Environ. Sci. 
Technol., 48, 9948-9948, DOI: 10.1021/es502485w, 2014.
    \183\ Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. Wiedmer, and R.P. 
Schwarzenbach: Concentrations and mass fluxes of chloroacetic acids 
and trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in Switzerland. 
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2675-2683, 2000.
    \184\ Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin, 
J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction 
from the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. 
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, a 2014 study by Kazil, et al. analyzed TFA deposition 
in the United States assuming 100 percent of all MVAC systems use HFO-
1234yf. The results indicated that rainwater TFA concentrations, while 
varying strongly geographically, will on average be low compared to the 
levels at which toxic effects are observed in aquatic systems. The UNEP 
Ozone Secretariat also provided a summary of key information pertaining 
to TFA based on the 2014 Assessment Reports of the Environmental 
Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and the Scientific Assessment Panel 
(SAP) of the Montreal Protocol. The brief states, ``While it is well 
established that TFA is a ubiquitous natural component in rivers, 
lakes, and other surface water bodies, uncertainties remain regarding 
anthropogenic sources, long-term fate and abundances as these are 
linked to current and future use and emissions of HFCs, HCFCs, and 
HFOs. Based on estimates to 2040, increases are predicted to remain 
relatively low and are therefore not expected to be a significant risk 
to human health or detrimental to the environment. Projected future 
increased loadings of TFA to playas, land-locked lakes, and the oceans 
due to continued use of HCFCs, HFCs, and replacement products such as 
HFOs are still judged to present negligible risks for aquatic organisms 
and humans.'' The UNEP background document also states that TFA and its 
salts ``do not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms, and do not 
biomagnify in the food chain. Thus they present negligible risk to 
organisms higher on the food chain, including humans.'' See the docket 
for this rulemaking for additional information on TFA projections in 
the environment.
c. Relationship With Other Rules
    Comment: AAM and Chemours commented that EPA should use incentives 
similar to the LD GHG Rule to encourage transition to low-GWP solutions 
in medium and heavy-duty vehicles. Chemours indicated that automakers 
in the United States, Canada, Mexico, EU, Japan, and South Korea are 
deploying HFO-1234yf in a range of models, largely in response to 
policy incentives including the US light-duty vehicle tailpipe GHG 
standards and the EU Mobile Air Conditioning Directive. To support 
their argument, AAM provided comments submitted by the American 
Automotive Council's (AAC) on EPA's Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas (HD GHG) 
Phase 2 proposed rule and encouraged the Agency to adopt a credit 
allowance mechanism to ``incentivize the quicker adoption of HFO-1234yf 
and leakage improvements for HD pickup trucks and complete HD vans.'' 
AAM stated that ``the opportunities for fuel savings and GHG emission 
reductions on these medium and heavy duty vehicles are even greater, 
per vehicle, than on light duty vehicles given the larger refrigerant 
charge sizes, higher fuel consumption engines, longer vehicle lifetimes 
and greater lifetime VMT in these heavier vehicle categories.''
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We 
note that as part of the Model Year (MY) 2017-2025 LD GHG rule,\185\ 
EPA established the availability of credits for the use of alternative 
refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a. In this action, EPA 
is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 
MDPVs which are included in the MY 2017-2025 LD GHG rule; therefore, 
vehicle manufacturers will be able to obtain credits for the use of 
HFO-1234yf in these vehicles as allowed for in the MY 2017-2025 LD GHG 
rule. The LD GHG standards do not require any specific means of 
compliance, so manufacturers have the flexibility to either switch 
refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ 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).
    \186\ 77 FR 62804-809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Status Change for Other Refrigerants
    Comment: CARB, Honeywell, NRDC, and IGSD suggested that EPA change 
the status of HFC-134a and other high-GWP alternatives to unacceptable 
in MVAC systems for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD 
vans. These commenters indicated that HFC-134a is unacceptable for LD 
vehicles and changing the status of HFC-134a for HD vehicles could 
result in significant reductions in carbon equivalent emissions. NRDC 
and IGSD commented that similar to the listing of HFC-134a as 
unacceptable for newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning in 
Model Year 2021, EPA should establish a similar status change date for 
HFC-134a in MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and complete HD vans to secure 
additional climate benefit at negligible additional risk. Honeywell 
commented that if EPA were to change the status of HFC-134a to 
unacceptable for these HD vehicle types, avoided emissions could be 
approximately one million MtCO2eq annually. CARB and Honeywell 
suggested that EPA should change the status of HFC-134a for these 
applications and also suggested a change of status date of MY 2021. In 
support, these commenters claimed it is feasible for the industry can 
transition to low-GWP alternatives by MY 2021 based on the following: 
Stakeholder input suggest OEMs need two to three years to evaluate safe 
and effective implementation of low-GWP alternatives and another two to 
three years to adopt necessary changes; substitutes exist for mobile 
air conditioning systems, including HFO-1234yf; international policy is 
driving global auto manufacturers to transition to alternatives other 
than HFC-134a by the end of 2016 and U.S. car manufacturing can apply 
the lessons learned from global manufactures to transition U.S. 
vehicles to non-HFC-134a alternatives; several U.S. car manufactures 
are already selling vehicle models that use HFO-1234yf systems; and 
commercial scale HFO-1234yf production plants are operating and supply 
will continue to increase.
    Response: EPA did not propose to change the status of HFC-134a in 
MVAC systems for newly manufactured HD vehicles; therefore, the Agency 
is not establishing a change of status date as part of the final rule. 
EPA appreciates the comments submitted and will take them into 
consideration when the Agency considers any additional changes of 
status under the SNAP program.
    Comment: NRDC and IGSD commented that EPA should take steps to 
ensure thatnew vehicles designed for HFO-1234yf are not serviced or 
recharged with HFC-134a. The commenters stated that HFC-134a will 
remain approved to service existing motor vehicles and, therefore, it 
is possible to modify new vehicles to recharge with HFC-134a. NRDC and 
IGSD recommended that EPA enact ``stronger, more comprehensive and 
enforceable rules to discourage and prohibit'' the modification of new 
HFO-1234yf systems with HFC-134.'' Specifically, the commenters

[[Page 86846]]

recommended that the Agency ``classify refrigerant-containing 
components as part of the emission control system, which would make it 
illegal to substitute refrigerants or unqualified replacement parts.'' 
They also suggested that EPA require OEMs to apply tamper-proof seals 
to refrigerant charge ports, similar to the plastic seals used on 
pharmaceutical products, to identify tampering and alert service 
technicians, owners, or potential buyers to the possibility that a 
refrigerant other than HFO-1234yf is in the system.
    Response: The SNAP listings for all MVAC refrigerants require the 
use of unique fittings for each alternative refrigerant. These fittings 
are found at attachment points on the car itself, on all recovery and 
recycling equipment, on can taps and other charging equipment, and on 
all refrigerant containers. The purpose of these fittings is to prevent 
cross-contamination. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a 
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use 
conditions. The commenter did not identify other methods to discourage 
and prohibit use of HFC-134a in systems designed from HFO-1234yf or how 
EPA could otherwise strengthen the current conditions that discourage 
cross-contamination of refrigerants in MVAC. See section VI.B.6.e of 
the July 2015 final rule for a response to several comments on 
servicing CFC-12, HFC-134a, and the lower-GWP alternative refrigerant 
MVAC systems. EPA will consider updating the information on our Web 
site, as appropriate.
e. Other Suggestions or Requests
    Comment: Honeywell recommended that EPA consider listing high-GWP 
substances as unacceptable for use in refrigerated transport, as early 
as January 1, 2019, in a future rulemaking. Honeywell stated that two 
leading manufacturers of mobile refrigeration systems have introduced 
systems that utilize refrigerants with GWPs below 2,200 and have been 
selling these systems for more than a year. They also commented that 
there are commercially available refrigerant options with a GWP of less 
than 1,500, including R-448A, R-449A, R-134a, R-450A, R-513A and 
CO2.
    Response: EPA appreciates receiving this information and will 
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.
    Comment: EIA commented that CO2 is listed as an 
acceptable substitute in HD vehicles and should also be listed as 
acceptable in the end-uses covered in this action as well.
    Response: EPA notes that CO2 is currently listed as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in all MVAC applications 
for new equipment, including newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup 
trucks, and complete HD vans.
    Comment: CARB commented that they are aware of Chemours' SNAP 
application for the use of HFO-1234yf in various heavy-duty vehicle 
classifications and encouraged EPA to expedite the review and 
determination process upon receiving the application.
    Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion. EPA is 
reviewing the submission from Chemours regarding the use of HFO-1234yf 
in other heavy duty vehicle classes.

C. Foam Blowing Agents

1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents for 
Rigid PU Spray Foam
a. Background
    In the NPRM published on August 6, 2014, EPA proposed to change the 
listings from acceptable to unacceptable for HFC-134a and blends 
thereof, and the HFC blend Formacel TI for spray foam as of January 1, 
2017 (79 FR 46149). After considering the comments received on the 
proposed rule, EPA deferred taking final action on spray foam in the 
final rule. See sections V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to the 
final rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015).
    In the past, EPA combined spray foam, commercial refrigeration 
foam, sandwich panels, and marine flotation foam within a single end-
use: Rigid PU commercial refrigeration, spray, and sandwich panels. 
However, because of differences in the exposure and fire safety 
characteristics of these uses as well as the fact that different 
alternatives are generally used for each of these applications, EPA 
more recently created separate end-use listings for each of these 
applications. See 80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015. Commercial refrigeration 
and sandwich panels include insulation for walls, pipes (including 
``pipe-in-pipe''), metal doors, vending machines, refrigerated and 
unrefrigerated coolers, refrigerated transport vehicles, and other 
laboratory and commercial refrigeration equipment, as well as foam for 
taxidermy. These foams may be injected or applied using ``pour-in-
place'' equipment, depending on the agent used and on whether the 
formulation is pressurized. Marine flotation foam includes buoyancy or 
flotation foam used in construction of boats and ships. These foams 
typically are injected into a cavity in the boat wall from a two-
canister (A- and B-side) system under lower pressures and they provide 
structure as well as buoyancy. The end-use affected here, rigid PU 
spray foam, hereafter called ``spray foam,'' includes insulation for 
roofing, walls, doors, and other construction uses, as well as foam for 
building breakers for pipelines. These foams are rigid with closed 
cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can contribute 
to the foam's ability to insulate. Spray foam may have similar 
chemistry to other rigid PU end-uses, but it differs by being sprayed 
onto a surface in the location where it is to be used, either when 
constructing a new building or when adding insulation to an existing 
building, rather than being injected or poured or being produced in a 
manufacturing facility. As a result, it may be more difficult to 
provide engineered ventilation during application of spray foam than 
for other foam end-uses. In addition to federal rules and guidance 
applying to the application of spray foam, insulation foam used in 
construction (e.g., high-pressure two-component spray foam) must meet 
insulation value requirements in state and local building codes.
    We have identified three distinct and separate spray foam 
applications for this end-use: (1) High-pressure two-component, (2) 
low-pressure two-component, and (3) one-component foam sealants.
    High-pressure two-component spray foam products are pressurized 
800-1600 psi during manufacture, are sold in pressurized containers as 
two parts (i.e., A-side and B-side), and are sprayed in the field for 
thermal insulation and air sealing of buildings and in roofing 
applications. High-pressure two-component spray foam is blown and 
applied in situ using high-pressure pumps to propel the foam 
components, and thus, may use liquid blowing agents without an 
additional propellant. Common liquid foam blowing agents used in high-
pressure two-component spray foam include HFC-245fa; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa; and commercial blends of 
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc. This type of spray foam is applied by professionals who wear 
personal protective equipment (PPE) while applying high-density foam 
insulation for roofing or walls. High-pressure two-component spray foam 
comprises the largest portion of the spray foam market.
    Low-pressure two-component spray foam products are pressurized to 
less than 250 psi during manufacture, are

[[Page 86847]]

sold in pressurized containers as two parts (i.e., A-side & B-side), 
and are also sprayed in the field for thermal insulation and air 
sealing of buildings. Low-pressure two-component spray foams are 
typically applied in situ relying upon a gaseous foam blowing agent 
that also serves as a propellant; pumps typically are not needed. This 
type of spray foam has primarily used the gaseous blowing agent HFC-
134a; the Foams Technical Options Committee has also identified 
CO2 and water as options. Low-pressure two-component spray 
foam is usually applied by home improvement contractors to fill in 
cracks and gaps in a residence using kits that are available for 
sale.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ Low-pressure two-component spray foam kits should only be 
used by trained professionals. The polyurethanes industry has 
guidance on how to use low pressure kits available at: http://spraypolyurethane.org/spf-chemical-health-and-safety-training and at 
http://spraypolyurethane.org/Main-Menu-Category/Weatherization-Contractors/Installing-SPF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One-component foam sealants are packaged in aerosol cans and are 
applied in situ using a gaseous foam blowing agent that is also the 
propellant for the aerosol formulation. This end-use category primarily 
uses light saturated HCs as the blowing agent, as well as HFCs such as 
HFC-134a and HFC-152a. This type of spray foam may be used by consumers 
and by home improvement contractors in order to seal cracks and leaks 
in a residence, as well as used for pest management.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    EPA proposed to change the status of the following HFCs and HFC 
blends that have previously been listed as acceptable foam blowing 
agents for use in spray foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; 
blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa; commercial 
blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the 
remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI.\188\ In this action, we are 
finalizing the status changes that we proposed with no changes. The 
change of status determinations for rigid PU spray foam are summarized 
in Table 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ We note that neat HFC-365mfc has never been listed as 
acceptable for use in spray foam.

Table 17--Change of Status Decisions for Foam Blowing Agents in Rigid PU
                               Spray Foam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes         Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high-   HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 pressure two-component.       and blends thereof;   to narrowed use
                               blends of HFC-        limits for military
                               365mfc with at        or space- and
                               least four percent    aeronautics-related
                               HFC-245fa, and        applications * as
                               commercial blends     of January 1, 2020.
                               of HFC-365mfc with   Unacceptable for all
                               seven to 13 percent   applications other
                               HFC-227ea and the     than military or
                               remainder HFC-        space- and
                               365mfc; and           aeronautics-related
                               Formacel TI.          applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2020.
                                                    Unacceptable for all
                                                     uses as of January
                                                     1, 2025.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low-    HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 pressure two-component.       and blends thereof;   to narrowed use
                               blends of HFC-        limits for military
                               365mfc with at        or space- and
                               least four percent    aeronautics-related
                               HFC-245fa, and        applications * as
                               commercial blends     of January 1, 2021.
                               of HFC-365mfc with   Unacceptable for all
                               seven to 13 percent   applications other
                               HFC-227ea and the     than military or
                               remainder HFC-        space- and
                               365mfc; and           aeronautics-related
                               Formacel TI.          applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2021.
                                                    Unacceptable for all
                                                     uses as of January
                                                     1, 2025.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--one     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Unacceptable as of
 component foam sealants.      and blends thereof;   January 1, 2020.
                               blends of HFC-
                               365mfc with at
                               least four percent
                               HFC-245fa, and
                               commercial blends
                               of HFC-365mfc with
                               seven to 13 percent
                               HFC-227ea and the
                               remainder HFC-
                               365mfc; and
                               Formacel TI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Under the narrowed use limit, an end user must make reasonable efforts
  to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due
  to performance or safety requirements.

i. How do these unacceptable blowing agents compare to other blowing 
agents for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    Over the past ten years, the number of available alternative 
blowing agents for spray foam has increased. A number of new foam 
blowing agents with low GWPs, both fluorinated and non-fluorinated, 
have been introduced during the past several years.
    In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on the environmental 
and health risks presented by the alternatives that are being found 
unacceptable compared with other available alternatives that are listed 
as acceptable (81 FR 22869-71; April 18, 2016). In addition, a 
technical support document \189\ that provides the Federal Register 
citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, 
toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives, as well as those 
we are finding unacceptable in the relevant end-uses, may be found in 
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In summary, the 
risks other than GWP for the acceptable alternatives are not 
significantly different from the risks for the alternatives than for 
the blowing agents we are proposing to list as unacceptable, and the 
GWPs for the blowing agents we are proposing to list as unacceptable 
are significantly higher and thus pose significantly greater risk. The 
HFCs that we are listing as unacceptable for rigid PU spray foam have 
GWPs ranging from 1,030 for HFC-245fa to 1,430 for HFC-134a. The HFC 
blends that we are listing as unacceptable have GWPs that vary 
depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for blends is 
740 to 1,030 for blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-
245fa, 900 to 1,100 for commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 
13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, and 1,330 to 
approximately 1,500 for Formacel TI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acceptable alternatives for all three spray foam applications 
include CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate, HFC-
152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. As 
shown in Table 18, these alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 
124. In addition, for one-component foam sealants only, light saturated 
HCs are acceptable, with GWPs in the range of three to 15. For high-
pressure two-component spray foam only, HFO-1336mzz(Z) is acceptable, 
with a GWP of approximately nine. These GWPs are significantly lower 
than the GWPs of 740 to 1,500 for the HFC and HFC blend

[[Page 86848]]

substitutes subject to the proposed change of status.

   Table 18--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Foam Blowing Agents in Rigid Polyurethane High-Pressure Two-Component
       Spray Foam, Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam, and Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Blowing agents               GWP                 ODP                    VOC            Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Rigid PU High-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends     740-1,500  0.......................  No.................  Acceptable,
 thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc                                                                 subject to
 with at least four percent HFC-                                                               narrowed use
 245fa, and commercial blends of                                                               limits \2\ or
 HFC-365mfc with seven to 13                                                                   unacceptable.
 percent HFC-227ea and the
 remainder HFC-365 mfc; and
 Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid; HFC-         0-124  0-0.00034...............  No.................  Acceptable.
 152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1-
 chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
 ene (SolsticeTM 1233ze(E)) \
 1\; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z).....         >1-9  0.......................  Yes................  Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Rigid PU Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends     740-1,500  0.......................  No.................  Acceptable,
 thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc                                                                 subject to
 with at least four percent HFC-                                                               narrowed use
 245fa, and commercial blends of                                                               limits \2\ or
 HFC-365mfc with seven to 13                                                                   unacceptable.
 percent HFC-227ea and the
 remainder HFC-365mfc; and
 Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; HFO-            0-124  0-0.00034...............  No.................  Acceptable.
 1234ze; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
 trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z).....         >1-9  0.......................  Yes................  Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends     740-1,500  0.......................  No.................  Unacceptable.
 thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc
 with at least four percent HFC-
 245fa, and commercial blends of
 HFC-365mfc with seven to 13
 percent HFC-227ea and the
 remainder HFC-365mfc; and
 Formacel[supreg] TI.
CO2; Ecomate; HFC--152a; HFO-           0-124  0-0.00034...............  No.................  Acceptable.
 1234ze; Methyl Formate; trans-1-
 chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
 ene; Water.
Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z);             >1-9  0.......................  Yes................  Acceptable.
 Saturated Light HCs C3-C6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or
  additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.
\2\ For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications.

    All of the HFCs and HFC blends we are listing as unacceptable 
consist of compounds that are non-ozone-depleting. Only one of the 
alternatives in these three spray foam applications--trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene--contains chlorine and has an ODP, which is 
0.00024 to 0.00034. Estimates of its maximum potential impact on the 
ozone layer indicate a statistically insignificant impact, comparable 
to that of other substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to 
be non-ozone-depleting.190 191
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ 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.
    \191\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the HFCs and HFC blends we are listing as unacceptable 
consist of compounds that are excluded from the definition of VOC under 
CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of 
SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The other alternatives, with the 
exception of light saturated HCs (for one-component foam sealants 
only),\192\ and HFO-1336mzz(Z) (for high-pressure two-component spray 
foam only), contain compounds that are not VOC (i.e., water) or are 
excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 
51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS (e.g., CO2, component of ecomate, HFO-1234ze(E), 
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene). Based on the small 
anticipated usage of HCs, and due to existing state regulations under 
SIPs affecting aerosol products that may include HCs as the blowing 
agent in one-component foam sealants, we do not expect this alternative 
to have a significantly greater impact on local air quality than other 
available alternatives in these applications. The manufacturer of HFO-
1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the 
definition of VOC under those regulations. As provided in our decisions 
listing these substitutes as acceptable, we determined that emissions 
of these alternatives in this end-use would not pose a significantly 
greater risk than that posed by other available alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing agent brand 
Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for all rigid PU spray foam 
applications. However, the manufacturer of that blowing agent has 
withdrawn this agent from the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the HFCs and HFC blends with specific compositions that we 
are listing as unacceptable are nonflammable. There has been use of 
blends of HFC-134a and HFC-152a, composition unspecified, in the past; 
those blends may be flammable depending on the exact composition. Such 
blends are unacceptable under this final rule as blends of HFC-134a.
    Of the other alternatives, ecomate is the only one that is 
flammable. The manufacturers of ecomateTM have developed 
training to teach users of high-pressure two-component spray foam about 
the flammability hazards of

[[Page 86849]]

these flammable foam blowing agents in this end-use and how to minimize 
flammability risks.193 194 As we determined at the time that 
we listed ecomate as acceptable, it can be used in these spray foam 
applications in a manner that ensures it would not pose significantly 
greater risk than other available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ 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.
    \194\ FTOC, 2011. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams 
Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is 
accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toxicity must be considered and addressed with all of the 
alternatives in this end-use, with the possible exception of water. 
Both the HFC substitutes we are listing as unacceptable and the other 
alternatives have workplace exposure limits, either as regulatory 
requirements (i.e., OSHA PEL) or as a recommendation (e.g., AIHA WEEL, 
ACGIH TLV or manufacturer recommended workplace exposure limits). 
Proper training, use of PPE, and use of ventilation should be adhered 
to when applying spray foam. As we determined at the time that we 
listed each of these substitutes as acceptable, they can be used in 
these spray foam applications consistent with the relevant workplace 
exposure limits. For further information, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663.
ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related 
Applications
    EPA is establishing a time-limited exception to the unacceptability 
determination for military or space- and aeronautics-related 
applications when used in low pressure two-component and high pressure 
two-component spray foam. Specifically, EPA is finalizing a narrowed 
use limit that expires on January 1, 2025. As provided in section 
VI.C.1.b.iii, the vast majority of applications for spray foams are 
anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by 
January 1, 2020, for high-pressure two-component spray foam and as of 
January 1, 2021, for low-pressure two-component spray foam. However, 
for the military, there are several unique performance requirements 
related to weapon systems that require extensive testing and 
qualification prior to adoption of alternatives for the currently used 
foams. The same is true for other specialty applications with unique 
military requirements such as undersea; aerospace; and chemical, 
biological, and radiological warfare systems. In the case of space- and 
aeronautics-related applications, the challenging operational 
environment and the lengthy requalification process associated with 
human-rated space flight systems require a longer transition time than 
would otherwise apply.
    Users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category 
must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or 
alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to 
undertake a thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the 
otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to 
report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document 
these results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance.
    Users should include the following documentation to demonstrate 
compliance with the narrowed use applications. This information 
includes descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., 
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and 
projected time for switching.
iii. When will the status change?
    Except for the narrow use limits addressed above, EPA is changing 
the listings from acceptable to unacceptable (1) in high-pressure two-
component spray foam and in one-component foam sealants as of January 
1, 2020, and (2) in low-pressure two-component spray foam as of January 
1, 2021. The change of status applies to the following blowing agents: 
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at 
least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 
seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc and Formacel 
TI. The Agency is aware of several companies that have begun to 
transition.\195\ However, a change of status date of January 1, 2020, 
is necessary for high-pressure two-component spray foam to allow 
sufficient opportunity for affected entities to address the technical 
issues associated with using a different foam blowing agent, including 
the time required for reformulation (about one year), and the time 
required for testing and certification of the final commercial product 
(one to one and a half years). Part of the process of testing and 
certification for high-pressure two-component and low-pressure two-
component spray foam used for building insulation includes verifying 
sufficient insulation value to meet building code requirements. Some 
studies have indicated that CO2 may provide less insulation 
value to an insulation foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent 
information on some of the newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with 
low GWPs, such as HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these foam blowing agents provide 
comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and HFC 
predecessors. Thus, requirements to meeting building code requirements 
for insulation value will not impede a transition to alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Public and private sector commitments made at the White 
House Roundtable on October 15, 2015 is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To allow sufficient time for manufacturers of low-pressure two-
component spray foam kits to complete working through the technical 
challenges of alternatives, as well as time for existing kits to be 
distributed, purchased, and used by the end user, we are establishing a 
change of status date of January 1, 2021. A change of status date of 
January 1, 2021, is necessary for low-pressure two-component to address 
the technical issues associated with using a different foam blowing 
agent. Based on information from several companies developing low-
pressure two-component spray foam products, the process of 
reformulation has been more difficult than for high-pressure two-
component spray, because it must have a significantly longer shelf 
life. The product manufacturer must have time to determine a workable 
reformulation, a process that is expected to last up to two years. The 
products then need to be tested, which is expected to take 
approximately one to one and a half years. This includes testing both 
the formulation in separate containers (A- and B-side) and ensuring the 
long-term stability of the final blown foam once the two parts are 
mixed to blow the foam. Based on those technical hurdles, we are 
establishing a reasonable but expeditious change of status date of 
January 1, 2021 for low-pressure two-component spray foam.
    For one-component foam sealants, we believe a reasonable time for 
reformulation is one year and for testing is one to two years. Testing 
for this application should be shorter than that required for low-
pressure two-

[[Page 86850]]

component spray foam because testing is required only for a final 
formulation in an aerosol can for one-component foam sealants and 
because no certification testing would be required for the one-
component foam sealant, unlike for high-pressure two-component foam. We 
are establishing a change of status date of January 1, 2020, after 
which date, no more one-component foam sealants (cans) may be 
manufactured using the specified HFC blowing agents; the manufacturer 
may sell and the end user may continue to use cans that were 
manufactured prior to January 1, 2020. We limit the applicability of 
the use prohibition on closed cell foam products (discussed in section 
VI.C.3), so that it does not apply to closed cell foam products 
produced through the use of a one-component spray foam manufactured 
prior to the status change date.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in foam blowing agents and spray foam in 
particular. Comments were in reference to the descriptions of the 
applications in the preamble to the proposed rule, the proposed change 
of status dates, and the narrowed use limits for military and space- 
and aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing agents. Most commenters 
supported the proposed listing decisions, with some opposing or 
suggesting different change of status dates. Commenters supported the 
narrowed use exemption for military and space- or aeronautics-related 
uses. Some commenters suggested a similar narrowed use limit for a 
polyurethane preformed composites, and suggested either providing a 
separate listing for this specific use or as including it under the low 
pressure two-component spray foam application.
    Commenters included the American Chemistry Council's Center for the 
Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) and Spray Foam Coalition (SFC), 
organizations representing the foam industry; BASF and Dow, two major 
systems houses; Foam Supplies, Honeywell and Chemours, suppliers of 
alternative foam blowing agents; Clayton Corporation, a manufacturer of 
low-pressure two-component spray polyurethane foam kits; Structural 
Composites and Compsys, manufacturers of a specialized composite foam 
product for boats and refrigerated trailers; the National Marine 
Manufacturing Association (NMMA), an organization representing 
manufacturers of boats; the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA); and environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: BASF and Dow supported EPA's distinctions between 
different types of rigid PU spray foam, including low-pressure two-
component spray PU foams, high-pressure two-component spray PU foams, 
and one-component spray foam. They stated that the distinctions are 
important because the different applications require different 
chemistries and result in different challenges for formulators. BASF 
gave a variety of examples of formulation challenges for specific 
blowing agents and applications.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support for the distinctions between 
these three applications.
ii. Change of Status Dates
    Comment: CPI, SFC, Clayton Corporation, and Dow Chemical Company 
all stated that EPA should clearly state that the end-use change of 
status decisions apply to the act of a manufacturer combining the 
component chemicals (i.e., polyol, blowing agent, catalyst) in their 
plant to form the polyol resin blends and packaging the blends into a 
drum, canister, or can that is sold to end users. Clayton Corporation 
noted that advantages to this approach include greater transparency for 
enforcement, efficient raw material management by the manufacturers, 
improved production planning for compliance with the regulatory 
control, avoidance of ``abandoned'' inventories in the supply chain, 
and clarity to the marketplace that resin blends made prior to the 
change of status dates can still be used without restrictions.
    Response: EPA proposed that for high pressure two-component spray 
foam kits and for low pressure two-component spray foam kits, the 
change of status date would apply to both the manufacture of the kits 
and the use of those kits by the end user. For one-component foam, EPA 
proposed that the change of status date would apply to the manufacture 
of the one-component foam canisters but that end users could still 
purchase and use one-component foam canisters manufactured before the 
change of status date to apply the foam sealant. EPA adopted a 
different approach for one-component foams because such products are 
often manufactured well-before their ``use-by'' dates; they are 
manufactured in bulk and marketed to consumers at hardware and other 
stores where they may have a fairly long shelf-life (up to a year); and 
are typically purchased by the general public and may be used by the 
purchaser well after the purchase date. Thus, for the one-component 
canisters it would be much more difficult to plan for and avoid 
stranded inventory, which would then need to be disposed of, for this 
end-use. Moreover, because these products are widely used by the 
general public and may not be used at or near the time of purchase 
because of their longer shelf-life, it is significantly more difficult 
to ensure that users are aware of the regulations and also to ensure 
compliance by the end user. EPA has taken a similar approach for 
aerosol products that are largely purchased by individual consumers 
rather than businesses. See, e.g., 79 FR 46139, August 6, 2014; 80 FR 
42884, July 20, 2015. Similar issues apply to low pressure two-
component foam kits, such as extended shelf lives. In contrast, high 
pressure two-component spray foam kits are primarily marketed to 
businesses; high pressure two-component spray foam kits are frequently 
formulated on-demand, are typically used much closer to their purchase 
date, and typically do not have a long shelf-life. In this final rule, 
the change of status date applies to the manufacture of the one-
component foam canisters or low pressure two-part spray foam kit, and 
end users may still purchase and use one-component foam canisters or 
low pressure two-part spray foam kits manufactured after the change of 
status dates.
    Comment: Clayton Corporation suggested making the change of status 
date January 1, 2021, after which low-pressure two-component spray 
polyurethane foam kits containing HFCs cannot be manufactured. This 
commenter stated that this change of status date is necessary for low 
pressure two-component spray foam manufacturers, based on when the HFO 
stability research and certification listings would be completed. Dow 
stated that a January 1, 2021 change of status date for low pressure 
two-component spray foams is a target that will be difficult to 
achieve. BASF supported EPA's proposed change of status date for low 
pressure spray foam. Chemours strongly encouraged EPA to establish a 
change of status date of January 1, 2023 or later for low pressure two-
component spray foams. They claimed such date should not be until 
multiple low-GWP alternatives with appropriate technical

[[Page 86851]]

performance qualities become commercially available and they noted that 
there were stability issues and uncertainties about the only low-GWP 
alternative currently commercially available. Honeywell expressed 
concern that if the change of status date is later than January 1, 
2019, EPA's action could slow down the momentum that is already 
supporting adoption of low-GWP alternatives. NRDC and IGSD supported 
EPA's decision to establish change of status dates of January 1, 2020, 
for one-component foam sealants and high pressure two-component spray 
foam and January 1, 2021, for low pressure two-component spray foam.
    Response: EPA disagrees with those commenters who claim a status 
change date later than January 1, 2021, for low pressure two-component 
spray is necessary. One manufacturer of low pressure two-component 
spray foam kits has successfully used HFO-1234ze(E) as a blowing agent 
for at least one of its products, demonstrating that the technical 
challenges with stability of that HFO are surmountable with sufficient 
research and development.\196\ We also note that there are other 
commercially available alternatives for this end-use in addition to 
HFO-1234ze(E); as mentioned in the preamble to the NPRM, the Foams 
Technical Option Committee has also identified CO2 and water 
as options (81 FR 22869), and both are acceptable substitutes. The 
approximate four-year period before the change of status date will 
allow sufficient time for manufacturers of low-pressure two-component 
spray foam kits to complete working through the technical challenges of 
alternatives, allowing for two years for reformulation and one to one 
and a half years for testing. Setting a change of status date of 
January 1, 2019, would not allow sufficient time for identifying, 
reformulating and testing alternatives for the various product types 
being manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Kline et al., 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Dow Chemical Company and BASF commented that the proposed 
change of status date for high pressure two-component spray foam of 
January 1, 2020, is appropriate. Chemours Company stated that the 
change of status date for high-pressure two-component spray foam 
systems should be January 1, 2021, to allow for additional supply of 
alternatives and to allow foam manufacturers sufficient time for 
conversion to lower GWP alternatives. Honeywell stated the transition 
for high pressure two-component spray foam can occur a year earlier, by 
January 1, 2019, asserting that this was the quickest and easiest 
application, taking six to 18 months. NRDC and IGSD supported EPA's 
decision to ban manufacture of rigid polyurethane spray foams between 
2020 and 2021.
    Response: To date, a number of foam supply houses and spray foam 
applicators have successfully used trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene as a blowing agent in high pressure two-component spray foam and 
they have generally had lead times of one to two years to work through 
the transition. A change of status date approximately three years from 
now should provide sufficient lead time to transition other products, 
including both reformulation of products (one-half to one and a half 
years) and certification testing (one to one and a half years). Another 
alternative, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is expected to become commercially 
available in mid-2017; we expect that a change of status date of 
January 1, 2019, would not provide enough time for both reformulation 
of products with alternatives and testing. January 1, 2020, will allow 
more than two years to develop foam blowing formulations using HFO-
1336mzz(Z) and test them, and will allow for additional supply of 
blowing agent. In addition, there are other acceptable alternatives 
available for this end-use, e.g., ecomate.
    Comment: BASF supported the proposed change of status date for one-
component spray foam of January 1, 2020.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support for the proposed change of 
status date and we are adopting it in the final rule.
    Comment: NAFEM commented that the change of status date for the 
blowing agent HFC-134a does not provide manufacturers with sufficient 
time to integrate new blowing agents into their products. The 
transition away from HFC-134a requires additional capital investments, 
dedicated research and development resources, employee training, 
product testing and certification. Therefore, NAFEM requests that HFC-
134a be listed as an acceptable alternative for ten years after the 
rule is finalized, and under no circumstances should the change of 
status date be earlier than 2022.
    Response: NAFEM does not specify the end-use for which it submitted 
this comment. While the commenter lists actions they claim would be 
needed in order to transition from HFC-134a to another alternative, 
they have not provided any detail regarding the time it would take for 
the various actions. Moreover, as noted in our response to comment 
above regarding the change of status date for low pressure two-
component spray foam, a manufacturer has successfully transitioned to 
other alternatives. For one component spray foam, one manufacturer has 
committed to converting 95 percent of its one component spray foam 
products from HFCs to HFOs and hydrocarbons by summer 2016 and a second 
manufacturer has committed to transitioning to use of hydrocarbons as a 
blowing agent in one to two years from now.\197\ HFC-134a is not 
currently used in high-pressure two-component spray foam systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ FACT SHEET: Obama Administration and Private-Sector 
Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust Progress to 
Address Potent Greenhouse Gases. October 15, 2015. Accessible online 
at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. SNAP Review Criteria
    Comment: Foam Supplies, Inc., the supplier of the alternative 
ecomate, supported EPA's proposal to change the listing status of HFC 
blowing agents in the spray foam applications in the proposed rule from 
acceptable to unacceptable. The commenter mentioned a number of 
potential advantages of using ecomate in spray foam, including thermal 
efficiencies comparable to or better than foam blown with HFCs; ability 
to use with existing spray foam dispensing equipment; competitive 
pricing; shipping and handling requirements the same as for HFC foam 
systems; availability of systems that meet fire resistance and other 
safety specifications for various industry and building codes; and 
recent increases in production capacity. Foam Supplies, Inc. described 
ecomate as an environmentally benign blowing agent (no GWP, no ozone 
depletion potential and VOC exempt) that is readily available to 
replace HFC blowing agents in polyurethane spray foam.
    Response: We appreciate the support for the proposed rule and for 
the update about the recent increases in manufacturing capacity of 
ecomate and other features of this substitute that allow it to be 
available for use in rigid PU spray foam.
    Comment: NAFEM commented that EPA has failed to recognize important 
complications with the blowing agents that it now proposes as 
acceptable alternatives. NAFEM member Unified Brands describes such 
complications in their comments on the August 2014 proposal for a 
different rule, specifically mentioning the alternatives pentane, 
water-based blowing agents and methyl formate:


[[Page 86852]]


    Pentane based blowing agents are strong candidates due to their 
insulation performance, but require all foam fixtures and processes 
to be redeveloped due to the flammable nature of the refrigerant. 
Water-based blowing agents are environmentally friendly, but suffer 
from poorer insulation performance and also are more affected by 
processing temperature which requires improved control of fixture 
temperatures. Methyl formate is also environmentally friendly, but 
has had significant shrinkage issues once units have been placed in 
the field. This agent requires very specific foaming processes to be 
developed to ensure proper stability of the foam over time. While 
viable alternatives do exist, the amount of testing and factory/
process upgrades required make it impossible to transition to any 
replacement by January 1, 2017.

    Response: We note that these comments submitted by Unified Brands 
on this action are the same comments it submitted on a different rule, 
which addressed commercial refrigeration foam. It is difficult to 
determine how these comments relate to the specific action in this 
proposal regarding spray foam. As an initial matter, EPA is not taking 
action listing the mentioned foam blowing alternatives for these three 
foam blowing applications. We note that pentane is not currently listed 
as an acceptable blowing agent for use in two-component spray foams and 
the concerns raised by the commenter all relate to its use in a 
refrigerated system and not to spray foam primarily used for building 
construction. Methyl formate has not been listed as acceptable in the 
three applications addressed in this rule; the blowing agent ecomate, 
which contains methyl formate, is listed as acceptable. Water-based 
blowing agents are listed as acceptable in the three applications 
addressed in this rule. The concerns raised by the commenter can be 
taken into consideration by the manufacturer in determining the 
appropriate alternative to use for any specific foam-blowing kit or 
canister.
2. Revision to Change of Status Date of Certain HFCS and HFC Blends for 
Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
a. Background
    In the July 2015 final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits 
for certain HFCs and HFC blends for military and space- and 
aeronautics-related uses in all end-uses except for rigid PU spray 
foam, allowing continued use of those blowing agents until January 1, 
2022. The specific foam blowing agents and end-uses are codified in 
appendix U to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. Based on recent discussions 
with other government agencies, the most recent U.S. space flight 
program is still being developed, and it now appears that it may not be 
possible to qualify all foams needed with alternative foam blowing 
agents by the January 1, 2022, change of status date established in the 
July 2015 final rule. The qualification process is necessary to ensure 
the safety of space vehicles.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is revising the date upon which certain HFCs and 
HFC blend foam blowing agents for space- and aeronautics-related 
applications change status from acceptable, subject to narrowed use 
limits, to unacceptable. EPA is revising the change of status date to 
January 1, 2025, for space- and aeronautics-related applications. 
Military uses will continue to have a January 1, 2022, change of status 
date.

  Table 19--Revisions to Change of Status Dates for Foam Blowing Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes        Listing status *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane:           HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Appliance.                    HFC-365mfc and        to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2020.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane:           HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Commercial Refrigeration      HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
 and Sandwich Panels.          blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2020.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine    HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Flotation Foam.               HFC-365mfc and        to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2020.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane:           HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Slabstock and Other.          HFC-365mfc and        to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2019.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Rigid Polyurethane and        HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Polyisocyanurate Laminated    HFC-365mfc and        to narrowed use
 Boardstock.                   blends thereof.       limits for military
                                                     or space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2017.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Flexible Polyurethane.......  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
                               HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
                               blends thereof.       limits for military
                                                     or space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2017.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.

[[Page 86853]]

 
Integral Skin Polyurethane..  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
                               HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2017.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet.  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
                               HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2017.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Polystyrene: Extruded         HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
 Boardstock and Billet (XPS).  HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI,          or space- and
                               Formacel B, and       aeronautics-related
                               Formacel Z-6.         applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2021.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Polyolefin..................  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,  Acceptable subject
                               HFC-365mfc, and       to narrowed use
                               blends thereof;       limits for military
                               Formacel TI, and      or space- and
                               Formacel Z-6.         aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2020.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
Phenolic Insulation Board     HFC-143a, HFC-134a,   Acceptable subject
 and Bunstock.                 HFC-245fa, HFC-       to narrowed use
                               365mfc, and blends    limits for military
                               thereof.              or space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications * and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     all other uses as
                                                     of January 1, 2017.
                                                     Unacceptable for
                                                     military uses as of
                                                     January 1, 2022 and
                                                     unacceptable for
                                                     space- and
                                                     aeronautics-related
                                                     applications as of
                                                     January 1, 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to military or space- and
  aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been
  made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible
  due to performance or safety requirements.

c. How is EPA responding to comment?
    EPA received comments from NASA and Boeing, two end-users of foams 
used in space- and aeronautics uses, addressing the descriptions of the 
applications in the preamble to the proposed rule, the proposed change 
of status dates, and the narrowed use limits for military and space- 
and aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing agents. Both commenters 
supported the proposed modification to the change of status date for 
space and aeronautics.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
    Comment: NASA and Boeing supported EPA's proposed modification of 
the date on which the status of acceptable subject to narrowed use 
limits would change to unacceptable. NASA stated that being able to use 
HFC-blown foams in space-and aeronautics-related applications through 
2024 will help ensure crew safety and vehicle reliability while 
providing additional time to seek and qualify substitute foams in 
technologically-challenging applications such as space vehicle thermal 
protection and cryoinsulation. Boeing stated that suppliers of foams 
used in military or aerospace hardware may face significant obstacles 
meeting a host of performance and safety requirements imposed by 
Boeing, the military services, NASA or FAA and agreed that testing of 
blowing agents for these niche markets may require more time than for 
mass-market commercial items, due to customer and regulatory agency 
approval requirements.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support.
3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene Chloride in Foams
a. Background
    Methylene chloride, also known as dichloromethane, has the chemical 
formula CH2Cl2 and the CAS Reg. No. 75-09-2. EPA 
initially listed this substitute as acceptable for flexible PU foam in 
the initial SNAP rule (79 FR 13044; March 18, 1994). In the April 18, 
2016, proposed rule, EPA proposed to change the listing status of 
methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in flexible PU foam, 
integral skin PU foam, and polyolefin foam. Flexible PU includes foam 
in furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and shoe soles. Integral skin PU 
includes car steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles. Polyolefin 
includes foam sheets and tubes.
    Since EPA's initial listing decision for methylene chloride in 
flexible PU foam, the Agency has separately issued a residual risk 
standard under section 112 of the CAA for flexible PU foam production. 
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk 
and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, (79 FR 
48073; August 15, 2014). In that regulation, EPA examined the risk 
posed by emissions from source regulated under a maximum achievable 
technology (MACT) standard for flexible polyurethane foam 
manufacturing. EPA determined that it was necessary to tighten the MACT 
standard to reduce the level of risk posed by emissions of methylene 
chloride from the regulated sources. In the residual risk standard, EPA 
prohibited the use of methylene chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent 
in flexible PU slabstock foam production operations at major sources. 
Relying on the risk analysis performed for the MACT risk review, EPA 
proposed to change the status of methylene chloride from acceptable to 
unacceptable in flexible PU foam. In addition, because methylene 
chloride is

[[Page 86854]]

the only blowing agent in the integral skin PU foam and polyolefin foam 
end-uses that is carcinogenic, EPA proposed that it posed greater 
overall risk to human health and the environment and proposed to change 
the status of methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in 
those end-uses.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As provided in Table 20, EPA is changing the status of methylene 
chloride from acceptable to unacceptable when used as a blowing agent 
in the production of flexible PU foam. At this time, we are not 
finalizing a change of status for integral skin PU foam and polyolefin 
foam.

 Table 20--Change of Status Decisions for Flexible PU, Integral Skin PU,
                   and Polyolefin Foam Blowing Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use               Substitute          Listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible PU.................  Methylene        Unacceptable as of 30
                               chloride.        days after date of
                                                publication of a final
                                                rule.
Integral Skin PU............  Methylene        Acceptable.
                               chloride.
Polyolefin..................  Methylene        Acceptable.
                               chloride.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA initially proposed to change the listing status of methylene 
chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in flexible PU foam in order 
to be consistent with the revisions to the MACT that prohibited the use 
of HAP in slabstock flexible PU foam production operations at major 
sources. EPA is relying on the risk analysis performed as part of the 
risk review for the MACT, and which served as the basis for its 
decision to revise the MACT, to support its determination in this rule 
that the toxicity risk from methylene chloride in this end-use is 
significant and that there are other alternatives that pose an overall 
lower risk based on our analysis under the SNAP review criteria. See 81 
FR at 22876, April 18, 2016. As a policy matter, the Agency considers 
it inappropriate to continue to list as acceptable a substitute that is 
prohibited in this end-use under other environmental regulations. At 
best, continuing to list a prohibited substance as acceptable is 
misleading to the public as to whether the substitute is available and 
may be used; it also may lead to a misallocation of resources if there 
are any users of HFCs in this end-use that are transitioning away by 
January 1, 2017, as required under appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart 
G.
    For integral skin PU and polyolefin foams, we also proposed to 
change the listing status of methylene chloride from acceptable to 
unacceptable on the basis that methylene chloride poses significantly 
greater risks than the other alternatives available for this end-use 
because it is the only acceptable alternative in these end-uses that is 
a carcinogen and thus poses a significantly greater toxicity risk. 
Based on public comments urging EPA to do additional risk assessment 
before reaching such a conclusion for these two end-uses that are not 
subject to the MACT standard and were not part of the risk review of 
the MACT standard, we are not finalizing a change of status for 
methylene chloride in integral skin PU and polyolefin foams in this 
action.
i. How does methylene chloride compare to other blowing agents for the 
flexible PU end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    In the proposed rule, EPA provided information on environmental and 
health risks of methylene chloride and other available alternatives (81 
FR 22875-76; April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical support document 
\198\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on 
the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 
methylene chloride and for these other, acceptable alternatives may be 
found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered 
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing 
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methylene chloride contains chlorine and thus could have an ODP. We 
are unaware of a calculated ODP for methylene chloride in the peer-
reviewed literature, but it has historically been considered negligibly 
small.\199\ Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene 
chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing and 
could have a detectible impact on the ozone layer,\200\ despite the 
historical assumption of negligible ODP. For flexible PU, available 
substitutes include acetone, CO2, ecomateTM, HFC-
152a, HFO-1336mzz(Z), methylal, saturated light HCs (C3-C6),\201\ 
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water. Of the other 
available alternatives for flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1ene contains chlorine has an ODP, which is 0.00024 to 
0.00034. Estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone layer 
indicate a statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that of 
other substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to be non-
ozone-depleting.202 203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second 
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is 
accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
    \200\ Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Chipperfield, 
S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived 
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric 
ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This document is accessible online 
at http://DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ``New ozone-
destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by treaty.''. 
ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This document is accessible online 
at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216130241.htm.
    \201\ EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing agent brand 
Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for flexible PU foam. However, 
the manufacturer of that blowing agent has withdrawn this agent from 
the market.
    \202\ 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.
    \203\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methylene chloride has a GWP of approximately nine. As shown in 
Table 21, other acceptable alternatives have GWPs that are comparable 
or lower than methylene chloride's GWP of nine except for HFC-152a, 
which has a GWP of 124.

[[Page 86855]]



  Table 21--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Methylene Chloride Compared to Other Foam Blowing Agents in Flexible PU
                                                    Foams \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Blowing agents                GWP                 ODP                    VOC           Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene Chloride.............               9  unknown................  No................  Unacceptable.
Acetone; CO[ihel2] Ecomate; HFC-          0-124  0-0.00034..............  No................  Acceptable.
 152a; Methylal; trans-1-chloro-
 3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene;
 Water.
AB Technology; HFO-1336mzz(Z);             >1-9  0......................  Yes...............  Acceptable.
 Methylal; Saturated Light HCs
 C3-C6 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or
  additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.

    Methylene chloride does not meet the definition of VOC under CAA 
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is excluded from that definition 
for the purpose of developing SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 
With the exception of HCs, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and methylal, the other 
alternatives also contain compounds that are excluded from the 
definition of VOC. The manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned 
EPA to exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under those 
regulations. As provided in our decisions listing these substitutes as 
acceptable, we determined that emissions of these alternatives in this 
end-use would not pose a significantly greater risk than that posed by 
other available alternatives.
    Methylene chloride exhibits no flash point under standard testing 
conditions and thus is considered nonflammable, although it does 
exhibit lower and upper flammability limits of 13 percent and 23 
percent, respectively. Of the various alternatives, ecomate, HFC-152a, 
HCs, and methylal are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The 
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be 
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and 
fire codes.
    Health effects of concern with methylene chloride include cancer, 
liver, and kidney effects (longer-term exposure) and neurotoxic effects 
(acute exposure), in addition to irritation to the skin, eyes, and 
respiratory tract. Other alternatives for this end-use have potential 
health effects such as impacts on body weight, mononuclear infiltration 
of heart tissue, neurotoxic effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes, 
and respiratory tract; no other alternatives in this end-use have 
evidence of cancer as a health effect. Toxicity is not a significant 
concern in the workplace for methylene chloride or for the other 
available alternatives because they may be used for blowing flexible PU 
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. 
In the initial SNAP rulemaking, EPA listed methylene chloride as 
acceptable in this end-use, citing the presence of the OSHA regulations 
as sufficient to address workplace risk.
    Information regarding general population risk indicated the highest 
cancer risk for methylene chloride of all the alternatives for this 
end-use and provided no summary information on non-cancer risks for 
methylene chloride. Since that time, as part of the CAA section 112 HAP 
program, EPA performed a risk analysis for the flexible polyurethane 
foam production source category to determine the risk from emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants, primarily methylene chloride. Based on that 
risk analysis, EPA determined that although methylene chloride 
emissions did not pose an unacceptable health risk within the meaning 
of section 112(f) for the general population, there was a both a cancer 
and a non-cancer health risk that could be reduced at low cost. 
Specifically, EPA determined to ban the use of HAP blowing agents 
containing methylene chloride in order to protect public health with an 
ample margin of safety. 79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014. None of the other 
alternative blowing agents are regulated as hazardous air pollutants 
under the CAA. Based on the analysis and the conclusions from the 
section 112 HAP program analysis and in light of the toxicity 
information for other available substitutes, EPA has determined that 
methylene chloride poses significantly greater risk than other 
available substitutes in this end use. We note that we are not aware of 
any use of this blowing agent in this end-use and no commenters 
indicated that it was currently being used in this end-use.
ii. When will the status change?
    The status of methylene chloride in flexible PU foam is changing to 
unacceptable as of 30 days after this final rule is published in the 
Federal Register, January 3, 2017. This blowing agent has already been 
prohibited in flexible PU foam manufacturing operations for major 
sources by EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible 
Polyurethane Foam Production (79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014). Moreover, 
we received no comments indicating current use of methylene chloride in 
this end-use. Thus, we expect that the industry has already 
transitioned away from this substitute in that end-use.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received comments from the Halogenated Solvents Industry 
Alliance (HSIA), a trade group representing the chlorinated solvents 
industry. Comments were in reference to EPA's authority generally for 
the changing the status of a substitute (responded to in section VII.B 
in this document) and the significance of the risk of methylene 
chloride. HSIA opposed EPA's proposed changes of status for methylene 
chloride in three foam end-uses.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. SNAP Review Criteria
    Comment: HSIA commented that changing the listing status of 
methylene chloride on the basis that it is an animal carcinogen is 
incompatible with the SNAP program principles and with all previous EPA 
regulation of toxic air contaminants. The commenter stated that under 
all relevant federal programs, before an agency can regulate on the 
basis of carcinogenicity, it must make a finding that the substance 
poses a significant risk that can be eliminated by the restriction.
    Response: We disagree that this action is inconsistent with the 
SNAP program principles. Under section 612 of the Act, EPA is required 
to list a substitute as unacceptable where there are other 
``available'' alternatives that pose less overall ``risk to human 
health and the environment.'' Under sections 612 of the Act, it is not 
necessary to eliminate or have zero risk in order to regulate; rather 
risk is assessed based on

[[Page 86856]]

comparison to other alternatives and an alternative must be listed as 
unacceptable if there are other alternatives that ``reduce the overall 
risk.'' The SNAP principles reflect this statutory mandate. However, by 
prohibiting the use of methylene chloride in flexible polyurethane 
under this rule, we are eliminating the identified toxicity risk posed 
by that substitute in this end-use where other alternatives do not pose 
such a risk and where other risks are similar for both methylene 
chloride and other available substitutes. As to the commenter's 
statement that Concerning the commenter's statement referring to 
methylene chloride as an animal carcinogen, we note that the Agency 
considers methylene chloride ``likely to be carcinogenic in humans,'' 
based predominantly on evidence of carcinogenicity at two sites in two-
year bioassays on mice, as per U.S. EPA (2005a) Guidelines for 
Carcinogen Risk Assessment.\204\ To the extent the commenter raises 
issues with EPA's authority under other CAA programs, those programs 
are not at issue in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Dichloromethane; CASRN 75-09-2 Integrated Risk Assessment 
System Chemical Summary Document. U.S. EPA, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment. Accessible online at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0070_summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: HSIA stated that in 1994, EPA concluded after conducting 
risk screens that methylene chloride emissions from foam blowing in 
compliance with existing regulatory standards were within the range of 
acceptable carcinogenic risk. The instant proposal cites no piece of 
hazard, exposure, or risk information that has come to light over the 
past 22 years to change that assessment.
    Response: We disagree that there has been no new assessment of the 
risk from methylene chloride for this end-use in the past 22 years. As 
noted, EPA recently performed a risk review for the flexible 
polyurethane foam production source category in which EPA evaluated the 
risk that remained from emissions from sources in this source category 
after promulgation of the MACT standard. Based on that analysis and to 
address risk, EPA concluded that it should tighten the MACT standard by 
banning the use of methylene chloride and six other HAP foam blowing 
agents. That same risk analysis supports EPA's action here.
    Comment: HSIA commented that EPA failed to account for other 
factors that may present a greater risk to human health besides 
carcinogenicity, such as flammability, contribution to smog formation, 
and GWP.
    Response: We disagree that we did not evaluate and consider the 
other SNAP review criteria is making our decision. Those criteria were 
discussed in detail at 81 FR at 22875-8- in the proposed rule and are 
also discussed above. As noted above, EPA determined that the risk 
based on the other criteria was not significantly different.
    Comment: HSIA commented that, while Table 21 characterizes the ODP 
of methylene chloride as unknown, EPA has on numerous occasions 
determined that methylene chloride is ``non-ozone-depleting.''
    Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposal, more recent 
data indicate that methylene chloride may have a measurable impact on 
the stratosphere. In addition, more recent studies using 3-dimensional 
atmospheric modeling have indicated that another halogenated HC, trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene, which has two chlorine atoms like methylene 
chloride, has a small but measurable ODP of approximately 0.00024 and 
an atmospheric lifetime of 12.7 days.\205\ EPA has determined that the 
difference in ODP for the various alternatives in this end-use, 
including methylene chloride, is not significant and does not have a 
bearing on the change of status decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: HSIA commented that EPA's proposal ignored the distinction 
between hazard and risk, and thereby overturns several decades of EPA 
and other federal policy regarding the regulation of potential 
carcinogens and other toxic materials.
    Response: For flexible PU foam, we are removing the acceptable 
listing for a substitute in order to be consistent with other federal 
regulations that now prohibit use of this substitute in this end-use 
based upon a risk assessment performed for the MACT standard. That risk 
assessment did consider risk and not just hazard (i.e., the probability 
of an adverse health effect, and not just the potential adverse health 
effects that could occur, depending on exposure). We agree with the 
commenter that the proposal did not quantitatively analyze carcinogenic 
risk for the integral skin PU and polyolefin end-uses. Therefore, we 
are not finalizing our proposal to change the listing status of 
methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable in integral skin PU 
and polyolefin foams.
    Comment: HSIA commented that hazardous air pollutants under CAA 
section 112, such as methylene chloride, are not addressed by the 
Montreal Protocol or Title VI, and that EPA lacks statutory authority 
to regulate toxic air contaminants under CAA section 612.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency lacks authority to regulate 
hazardous air pollutants under section 612 and the commenter fails to 
cite to any provision that would prohibit such regulation. Under 
section 612, EPA is required to review alternatives for ozone depleting 
substitutes and to list as unacceptable those that pose greater risk to 
human health or the environment than other available substitutes. There 
is nothing in section 612 that states or even suggests that EPA is to 
review only those substitutes that are not hazardous air pollutants and 
any definition of risk would include the types of risks posed by 
hazardous air pollutants, such as cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and 
reproductive toxicity. We note that EPA first listed methylene chloride 
as a substitute for ODS under section 612 in 1994 and the issue of 
EPA's authority to do so was not raised at that time, nor has it been 
raised in the intervening years.
ii. Relationship to Other Rules
    Comment: HSIA commented that the proposed change of status for 
methylene chloride is based in part on a NESHAP finding, which is based 
entirely on the CAA Sec.  112(f)(2) requirement that EPA adopt 
``residual risk'' standards that ``provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health in accordance with [Sec.  112]. HSIA argued that 
the SNAP rule is not based on, nor should be based on, an ``ample 
margin of safety.'' This commenter also stated that the only relevant 
part of the NESHAP finding to the SNAP decision is that the residual 
risks to public health of seven environmental hazardous air pollutants, 
including methylene chloride, was found to be acceptable.
    Response: EPA recognizes that the residual risk review of the MACT 
standard found the residual risks to public health of methylene and six 
other hazardous air pollutants from flexible polyurethane production 
facilities to be ``acceptable.'' Under section 112 of the CAA, where a 
risk is unacceptable, EPA is required to regulate emissions without 
consideration of cost. A determination that the risk is acceptable, 
however, is not a determination that there is no risk. EPA is also 
required to then determine whether the existing standards ``provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health'' or to protect against 
``an

[[Page 86857]]

adverse environmental effect.'' EPA determined that it was necessary to 
ban the use of methylene chloride based foam blowing agents to protect 
public health with an ample margin of safety. For purposes of the SNAP 
review of toxicity risks, EPA relied on that risk analysis, which 
demonstrated a risk from use of methylene chloride based foam blowing 
agents. As explained more fully above, EPA determined that the overall 
risk posed by methylene chloride, based on the risk from toxicity, was 
more significant than the risk posed by other available alternatives 
for this end use.
4. Closed Cell Foam Products
a. Background
i. What are the affected end-uses?
    The foam sector includes both closed cell and open cell foams. 
Closed cell foams are specifically designed to retain the foam blowing 
agent in the cells; in insulation foam products, the foam blowing agent 
continues to perform a function in providing thermal insulation, once 
the foam has already been blown. With open cell foams, the foam blowing 
agent completes its function once the foam is blown; almost all of the 
foam blowing agent escapes from the open cells prior to import, and any 
vestigial amounts remaining do not perform a function.
    Foam blowing end-uses that contain closed-cell foams include rigid 
PU spray foam (all three applications described in section VI.C.1); 
rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid PU marine 
flotation foam; rigid PU appliance foam; rigid PU slabstock and other; 
rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene: 
extruded boardstock and billet; polystyrene: extruded sheet; 
polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing 
end-uses containing open cell foams include flexible PU and integral 
skin PU. Open cell phenolic, and some other open cell foams also exist 
within the SNAP foam blowing end-uses that include closed cell foams. 
Integral skin foam may include a rigid surface with an interior 
flexible core.
ii. How do other stratospheric ozone protection requirements apply to 
foam products?
    Several provisions of CAA Title VI and EPA's implementing 
regulations are relevant to HCFC foam products. Under regulations 
implementing CAA section 611, EPA requires labeling of products that 
contain an ODS and those that are manufactured with an ODS. EPA 
determined that open cell foams blown with an ODS must be labeled as a 
product manufactured with an ODS. (58 FR 8136, 8143-8150, February 11, 
1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014). In contrast, closed 
cell foam products blown with an ODS must be labeled as a product 
containing an ODS for labeling purposes. (58 FR 8136, 8150-8151, 
February 11, 1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014). As of 
January 1, 2015, any product containing a closed cell foam blown with 
an HCFC must be labeled as a product containing an ozone-depleting 
substance under the regulations at 40 CFR 82.106 implementing CAA 
section 611.
    Section 610 restricts sale and distribution and offers of sale and 
distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with CFCs 
and HCFCs.\206\ Section 610(d)(3)(A) explicitly provides an exception 
for foam insulation products containing HCFCs. EPA has implemented this 
restriction and the exception for HCFC foam insulation products through 
its Nonessential Products Ban regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82 
subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ Section 610 does not address products containing or 
manufactured with substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 605(a) prohibits the introduction into interstate 
commerce or use of any class II substance effective January 1, 2015, 
unless such substance--
    (1) has been used, recovered, and recycled;
    (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in 
the production of other chemicals;
    (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to 
January 1, 2020; or
    (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for 
nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c).
    The section 605(a) implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part 
82, subpart A restrict the use of virgin HCFCs to air conditioning, 
refrigeration, and fire suppression applications, with minor 
exceptions. Thus, while the Nonessential Products Ban does not apply to 
HCFC insulating foams, section 605(a) and its implementing regulations 
prohibit the use of HCFCs for blowing foam in the United States. The 
combined effect of the Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605(a) 
implementing regulations is that HCFC foam insulation products may be 
imported, sold, and distributed in the United States but cannot be 
manufactured in the United States.
    In the preamble to a July 11, 2000, SNAP proposed rule, EPA 
reviewed its authority under CAA section 610 and noted that HCFC 
insulating foams were exempt from regulation under that section of the 
statute. EPA stated that ``Title VI of the Act thus does not provide 
EPA with the authority to prevent imports of products containing those 
foams'' (65 FR 42653, 42656). EPA did not, however, base this statement 
on a full examination of the various authorities under Title VI. In 
taking final action on that proposal, EPA noted that while under 
section 610 it could not ban the sale of HCFC foam insulation products, 
section 610 ``does not address EPA's ability to regulate the transition 
from use of ODS to alternatives in the manufacturing of products such 
as foam.'' EPA further noted: ``Section 612 can restrict the use of a 
substitute in a product regardless of whether or not that product is 
considered nonessential under Section 610'' (69 FR 58275, September 30, 
2004).
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is applying the unacceptability determinations in 
this action for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and 
products containing closed cell foam. In addition, EPA is applying all 
listings for foam blowing agents codified in the appendices to 40 CFR 
part 82 subpart G to such products. Use of closed cell foam products 
(e.g., manufactured rigid PU insulation or XPS boardstock) or products 
that contain closed cell foam (e.g., household and commercial 
appliances, boats) manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent 
on or after the specified date is subject to the use prohibitions under 
SNAP. This includes, but is not limited to, incorporating a closed cell 
foam blown with an unacceptable blowing agent into a subsequent product 
and installing a closed cell foam product or product containing closed 
cell foam. Foam products or products containing foam manufactured prior 
to the specified date are not subject to the use prohibition whether 
manufactured in the United States or abroad.
i. How is EPA interpreting ``use'' of foam blowing agents in closed 
cells foams?
    Section 612 requires EPA to promulgate regulations prohibiting the 
replacement of ODS with certain substitutes and to publish lists of the 
substitutes prohibited for specific uses as well as those found 
acceptable for those uses. EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
82.174 state, in part: ``No person may use a substitute after the 
effective date of any

[[Page 86858]]

rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable 
substitutes'' (40 CFR 82.174(d)). The SNAP regulations define ``use'' 
of a substitute as including, but not being limited to, ``use in a 
manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in 
intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other 
subsequent uses.'' (Sec.  82.172)
    With respect to other sectors, EPA has treated use of a product 
manufactured with or containing a substance as constituting use of the 
substance where the product holds some amount of the substance, the 
substance continues to perform its intended function, and the substance 
is likely to be emitted in the United States either during use of the 
product or at the time of its disposal. For example, an aerosol can is 
manufactured to contain a substance as a propellant, and then that 
propellant leaks, is released by the end user during use of the aerosol 
can's contents, or is emitted at the time of disposal if it has not 
already been used up. In the July 2015 rule, in changing the status of 
certain substances with respect to aerosols, EPA prohibited use of 
aerosol products containing those substances, while stating that 
products manufactured prior to the change of status date could still be 
used after that date (80 FR 42883). By analogy, we are now interpreting 
``use'' of a foam blowing agent to include use of a closed cell foam 
product manufactured after the specified date. For such products, the 
foam blowing agent remains in the cells and continues to be used for 
the purpose of insulation during the lifetime of the product. 
Furthermore, emissions of the foam blowing agent occur at the time of 
disposal of the closed cell foam product. Thus, emissions from a closed 
cell product used in the United States can be expected to occur in the 
United States regardless of whether the product was manufactured 
domestically or abroad. This action ensures that products manufactured 
abroad and subsequently imported will be treated the same as products 
manufactured domestically. However, as noted above in section VI.C.1, 
the use prohibition does not apply to use of rigid PU one-component 
foam sealant cans or low pressure two-component spray foam kits that 
are manufactured prior to the change of status dates for those 
applications.
    EPA is not treating use of an open cell foam product as 
constituting use of the foam blowing agent. The foam blowing agent in 
an open cell foam product does not continue to perform its intended 
function during the lifetime of the product. Except for insignificant 
amounts remaining in the cells, emissions of the foam blowing agent 
occur at the time and place of manufacture. Therefore, we are 
differentiating between closed cell and open cell foam products for 
this purpose. This is consistent with the different treatment of closed 
and open cell foam products under the section 611 labeling regulations.
ii. When will use of closed cell foam products with unacceptable 
blowing agents be prohibited?
    For changes of status finalized in this rule (section VI.C.1 and 
VI.C.2), the unacceptability determination applies to use of closed 
cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam where the 
products are manufactured on or after the change of status date. As 
noted in the July 2015 rule with respect to MVAC and stand-alone 
refrigeration equipment (80 FR 42884), it is reasonable to allow use of 
products manufactured before the change of status date to avoid market 
disruption, creation of stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for 
releasing these substances to the environment. This applies also to 
products that are manufactured outside the United States before the 
change of status date and imported afterwards. Buyers should obtain 
documentation from importers that the imported products were 
manufactured or in inventory before the change of status date.
    For alternatives that have already been listed as unacceptable with 
a change of status date of January 1, 2017,\207\ or earlier--namely, 
HCFC blowing agents listed as unacceptable in appendices K, M, Q, and U 
to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, and HFC blowing agents listed as 
unacceptable for rigid PU and PIR boardstock, extruded polystyrene 
sheet, and phenolic foams in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G--
the unacceptability determination applies to use of closed cell foam 
products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured on or 
after the date one year after the date of publication of a final rule. 
This timing is intended to allow importers and international 
manufacturers of such products time to adjust their manufacture and 
import plans. For substitutes listed as unacceptable with a change of 
status date after January 1, 2017--namely, HFC and HFC blend blowing 
agents listed as unacceptable in rigid PU slabstock and other; rigid PU 
appliance foam; rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; 
rigid PU marine flotation foam; rigid PU spray foam; polyolefin; and 
polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet- the unacceptability 
determination applies both to use of an unacceptable foam blowing agent 
and to use of closed cell foam products and products that contain 
closed cell foam manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent 
on or after the change of status date for each end-use (January 1 of 
2019, 2020, or 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ There will also be a change of status on January 1, 2017 
for flexible PU and integral skin PU, but these are open cell foams 
and are not part of this rule for closed cell foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from individuals and organizations 
with various interests in foam blowing agents. Comments were in 
reference to EPA's proposed application of unacceptability 
determinations of foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and 
products containing closed cell foam manufactured with unacceptable 
blowing agents, to EPA's authority for the proposed new interpretation, 
to the proposed change of status dates, and to questions about a 
specific application. Some commenters supported EPA's proposed 
application of unacceptability to products, while others opposed that 
interpretation. Two commenters suggested different change of status 
dates from those EPA proposed, one suggesting an earlier date and the 
other suggesting a later date.
    Commenters included CPI, an organization commenting on behalf of 
the polyurethanes industry; Honeywell and Chemours, suppliers of 
alternative foam blowing agents; Whirlpool, a manufacturer of 
appliances using foam insulation; Structural Composites and Compsys, 
manufacturers of a specialized composite foam product for boats and 
refrigerated trailers; NMMA, an organization representing manufacturers 
of boats; and environmental organizations, NRDC and IGSD.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: Honeywell supported EPA's proposal to allow the continued 
use of closed cell foam and products containing closed cell foam, where 
such foams were manufactured prior to the date on which the substitutes 
with which they were blown become unacceptable. The commenter stated

[[Page 86859]]

that this is particularly important for refrigerated containers and 
trailers that travel across international borders and are used in 
service for five to ten years, and then sold at the end of their life 
for use as storage, living space, or other applications. Honeywell 
commented that EPA should continue to allow a refrigerated trailer that 
was manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent before the 
unacceptability date to be resold at the end of its life, which would 
come well after the change of status date.
    Response: EPA agrees that allowing the use of closed cell foam 
products and products containing closed cell foam that were 
manufactured prior to the change of status date results in allowing 
refrigerated containers and trailers to be used for their useful life 
in refrigerated transport and then for reuse in other applications.
ii. Change of Status Date
    Comment: Honeywell supported EPA's proposal to provide a transition 
period for closed cell foams, and products that contain such foams that 
were blown with a substance that is already unacceptable, such as an 
HCFC. The commenter stated, however, that the proposed date of one year 
after publication of the rule is longer than necessary and suggested 
the compliance date should instead be within 180 days after publication 
of the final rule. Honeywell suggested that a 180-day period would 
provide a reasonable amount of time for transition to acceptable 
solutions, since near ``drop in'' low-GWP alternatives are already 
commercial for closed-cell foam applications.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the 
change of status date of one year after publication of a final rule, as 
proposed. EPA disagrees with Honeywell that a 180-day period is 
sufficient to allow importers and international manufacturers of such 
products time to adjust their manufacture and import plans. This would 
be giving less than half the time that EPA has given to any other 
sector or end-use for a change of status where a substitute is 
currently being used. EPA has heard from systems houses and end users 
that alternative foam blowing agents, including olefinic foam blowing 
agents, require significant time for development and are not ``drop 
in'' replacements (e.g., 80 FR 42925-6, 42928, July 20, 2015). At least 
one recently listed alternative foam blowing agent, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is 
not expected to be commercially available until after that timeframe. 
Further, the commenter has not supported their statement that 180 days 
should be sufficient. Thus, we do not see that it is appropriate to 
change the proposed change of status date.
    Comment: Whirlpool suggested that EPA should grant the same lead-in 
period for use of imported products containing unacceptable HFC blowing 
agents as it granted for use of HFCs in domestic product manufacture. 
This commenter stated that manufacturers had just over 53 months from 
publication of the July 2015 rule to complete a transition of their 
domestic manufacturing lines and products manufactured on these lines 
before the January 1, 2020 change of status date (for appliance foam). 
Whirlpool requested that the change of status date be set to July 1, 
2021, in order to provide an equitable transition period, assuming that 
this rule would be finalized in late 2016.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the 
change of status dates as proposed. We disagree with Whirlpool that it 
is necessary or equitable for manufacturers of products outside the 
United States containing closed cell foams, such as appliances, to have 
until July, 2021, to continue using unacceptable HFC blowing agents for 
the U.S. market. Their domestic counterparts, in comparison, must stop 
using unacceptable HFC blowing agents as of January 1, 2020. EPA first 
signaled its interest in regulating use of foam products in an August 
6, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 46125, 46154) and did not withdraw that 
proposal. Manufacturers with both domestic and foreign manufacturing 
facilities have gained experience and knowledge with use of new blowing 
agents, and thus we expect that future transitions will be quicker. In 
addition, sufficient supplies of alternatives are anticipated to be on 
the market beginning in 2017 to allow product development, which was an 
important consideration when we set the change of status date for a 
number of rigid PU foam end-uses, including appliance foam, in the July 
2015 rule (80 FR 42925-26). Thus, we consider that the proposed January 
1, 2020, change of status date for appliances containing appliance foam 
blown with unacceptable alternatives still provides adequate time. For 
substitutes listed as unacceptable with a change of status date after 
January 1, 2017, the unacceptability determination applies to use of 
closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam 
manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the 
change of status date for each end-use (January 1 of 2019, 2020, or 
2021).
iii. SNAP Authority, Interpretation, and Impacts
    Comment: Chemours, Honeywell, NMMA, Compsys and Structural 
Composites, NRDC, and IGSD all supported EPA's proposal to prohibit the 
import of closed cell foams, and appliances containing them, that have 
been produced with and contain blowing agents whose status has been 
changed to unacceptable. They considered this to be fairer than the 
current situation, in which products containing foam blown with 
unacceptable foam blowing agents may be imported and sold in the United 
States while domestic manufacturers are prohibited from making and 
selling an identical product. Compsys and Structural Composites and 
Honeywell noted that EPA's proposal would remove the current incentive 
for U.S.-based manufacturers to move production outside of the United 
States in order to use less expensive substances with higher 
environmental impacts in nations that do not have such stringent 
requirements, thereby protecting the environment, U.S. jobs, and U.S.-
based small businesses.
    In contrast, CPI opposed EPA's proposal and urged EPA to reconsider 
or redefine its interpretation of use. This commenter raised concerns 
about potential unintended consequences and inconsistency in the 
treatment of foams produced domestically and overseas. CPI believed 
this interpretation leads to the possibility of prohibiting the import 
of products manufactured prior to the change of status date and thus 
treating imported products inconsistently with domestically-produced 
products manufactured prior to the change of status date. CPI believed 
that this inconsistency suggests that EPA's proposed action is beyond 
its authority under the CAA or contrary to the intent of the statute. 
CPI stated that they were unaware of any precedent or authority that 
would allow EPA to interpret ``use'' differently based on the location 
of a manufacturer's facility, and thus opposed EPA's reinterpretation 
of use for foam products. In addition, CPI elsewhere had suggested that 
EPA should consider the change of status date to be the date a 
manufacturer packages polyol resin blends, including the blowing agent, 
into a drum, canister, or can, and believed EPA's interpretation of 
``use'' for products was inconsistent with that suggestion.
    Response: EPA agrees with the first set of commenters that our 
proposed interpretation of ``use'' provides for more equitable 
treatment of domestic and foreign manufacturing. We also

[[Page 86860]]

find, as discussed by the commenters, that this interpretation of 
``use'' will have environmental and other benefits. EPA clarifies that 
the use prohibition would not apply to closed cell foam products, or 
products containing such foams, manufactured with unacceptable blowing 
agents prior to the change of status date, whether the product was 
manufactured in the United States or abroad. Thus, EPA would be 
interpreting use the same way, irrespective of the location of the 
manufacturer's facility. Concerning CPI's suggestion that use should be 
based upon the date of manufacturing and packaging a polyol resin, see 
section IV.C.1.c.ii above. We note that the definition of use in the 
initial SNAP rule at 40 CFR 82.172 refers to use as ``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.''

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
a. Background
    The fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses addressed in 
this action are total flooding and streaming. Total flooding systems, 
which historically employed halon 1301 as a fire suppression agent, are 
used in both normally occupied and unoccupied areas. In the United 
States, approximately 90 percent of installed total flooding systems 
protect anticipated hazards from ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A 
fires), while the remaining ten percent protect against applications 
involving flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class B fires).\208\ It is 
also estimated that approximately 75 percent of total flooding systems 
protect electronics (e.g., computers, telecommunications, process 
control areas) while the remaining 25 percent protect other 
applications, primarily in civil aviation (e.g., engine nacelles/APUs, 
cargo compartments, lavatory trash receptacles), military weapons 
systems (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces on ships, aircraft 
engines and tanks), oil/gas and manufacturing industries (e.g., gas/oil 
pumping, compressor stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery space, 
cargo pump rooms). Streaming applications, which have historically used 
halon 1211 as an extinguishing agent, include portable fire 
extinguishers designed to protect against specific hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon 
Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is EPA's final decision?
    EPA is listing 2-BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 
the total flooding end-use. The use condition requires that 2-BTP be 
used only in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in total flooding 
fire suppression systems. In addition, EPA is listing 2-BTP as 
acceptable, subject to use conditions for the streaming end use. The 
use condition requires that 2-BTP be used as a streaming agent only for 
handheld extinguishers in aircraft.
i. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these end-uses 
with respect to SNAP criteria?
(a) Total Flooding
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the total 
flooding end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 2016) 
EPA provided information on the environmental and health properties of 
2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use. Additionally, EPA's 
risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support document that 
provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP 
criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable 
alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the docket for 
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon 1301, the 
current market for total flooding systems also includes HCFCs, HFCs, 
inert gases, and a variety of NIK extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered 
aerosols, foams, water).\209\ 2-BTP has an ODP of 0.0028, and the ODPs 
of other total flooding alternatives are zero to 0.048. 2-BTP has a GWP 
of 0.23-0.26. As shown in Table 22, the GWPs of other total flooding 
alternatives range from zero to 3,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression, 
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration 
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. October 2015.
    \210\ Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate 
constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and 
global warming potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J. 
Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.

        Table 22--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of 2-BTP Compared to Other Total Flooding and Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fire suppressants                GWP             ODP                VOC               Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-BTP.............................   \1\ 0.23-0.26          0.0028  Yes..................  Acceptable, subject
                                                                                            to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone)              <1               0  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................             0.4           0.008  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CO[ihel2].........................               1               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HCFC Blend A\2\...................           1,546           0.048  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-227ea.........................           3,220               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-125...........................           3,500               0  No...................  Acceptable.
Water, Inert gases, Powdered                     0               0  No...................  Acceptable.
 aerosols A-E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC Blend B\3\...................              77         0.00098  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-227ea.........................           3,220               0  No...................  Acceptable.
HFC-236fa.........................           9,810               0  No...................  Acceptable.
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone)              <1               0  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CF[ihel3]I........................             0.4           0.008  Yes..................  Acceptable.
CO[ihel2].........................               1               0  No...................  Acceptable.
Water.............................               0               0  No...................  Acceptable.

[[Page 86861]]

 
H Galden HFPEs....................     2,790-6,230               0  No...................  Acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWP range represents GWPs for 30[deg]N. to 60[deg]N. and 60[deg]S. to 60[deg]N. emissions scenarios for a
  100-year time horizon. A tropospherically well-mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.\210\
\2\ HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75 percent), HCFC-22 (82 percent), HCFC-124 (9.5 percent),
  and D-limonene (3.75 percent).
\3\ HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123.

    In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of 
emissions of 2-BTP on local air quality. 2-BTP meets the definition of 
VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded 
from that definition for the purpose of SIPs to attain and maintain the 
NAAQS. EPA compared the annual VOC emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a 
total flooding agent to other anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions 
considering both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. Under either 
scenario, emissions are a small fraction of a percentage (5.6 x 
10-5 percent to 2.1 x 10-3 percent) of all 
anthropogenic VOC emissions in the United States in 
2014.211 212 Given this emission level, we determined it was 
not necessary to perform an assessment of the effect of these emissions 
on ambient ozone levels; any effect would be insignificant. This is 
particularly true since use will be limited to aircraft and thus most 
releases of 2-BTP are expected to be at altitude, not in the lower 
troposphere. Other acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use 
in this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on 
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. 
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
    \212\ Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions for the 
United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x10\6\ MT) as reported in 
the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA evaluated the risks associated with potential exposures to 2-
BTP during production operations and the filling of fire extinguishers 
as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the system during 
maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing system. EPA's review 
of the human health impacts of 2-BTP, including the summary of 
available toxicity studies, is in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0663).213 214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on 
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications. 
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
    \214\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on 
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. 
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during installation or servicing of 
2-BTP total flooding systems for engines and APUs on aircraft. These 
are both considered to be unoccupiable areas, meaning personnel cannot 
physically occupy these spaces, thus reducing the risk from exposure to 
an inadvertent discharge. The risk of accidental activation of the fire 
extinguishing system while personnel are present near the protected 
space is low if proper procedures, including those of the 2-BTP system 
manufacturer as well as the aircraft manufacturer, are followed. 
Instructions on system installation and servicing included in manuals 
for the 2-BTP systems should be followed. In the case of an inadvertent 
discharge of the system during maintenance activities on the fire 
extinguishing system or surrounding equipment, the cowl doors that 
would be open to allow access to the area will allow personnel to 
immediately egress and avoid exposure. Protective gloves and tightly 
sealed goggles should be worn for installation and servicing 
activities, to protect workers in any event of potential discharge of 
the proposed substitute, accidental or otherwise. Filling or servicing 
operations should be performed in well-ventilated areas. EPA's 
evaluation indicates that the use of 2-BTP is not expected to pose a 
significant toxicity risk to personnel or the general population. The 
risks after exposure are common to many total flooding agents, 
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same 
end-use such as C6-perfluoroketone.
    EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a 
total flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft 
because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by the 
substitute is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed by 
other alternatives listed as acceptable in the same end-use.
(b) Streaming Uses
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable for the 
streaming end-use. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 
2016) EPA provided information on the environmental and health 
properties of 2-BTP and the various substitutes in this end-use. 
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for 2-BTP and a technical support 
document that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data 
on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 
acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses are available in the 
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). In addition to halon 
1211, the current market for streaming applications also includes 
HCFCs, HFCs, and a variety of other agents (e.g., dry chemical, 
CO2, water).\215\ Specific alternatives used for streaming 
uses include HCFC Blend B (with an ODP of roughly 0.01 and a GWP of 
roughly 80), HFC-227ea (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of 3,220), and C7 
Fluoroketone (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of approximately one). The 
ODP, GWP, and VOC status of 2-BTP and other alternatives that are also 
used as streaming agents are described in Table 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression, 
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration 
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding local air quality impacts, EPA compared the annual VOC 
emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a streaming agent to other 
anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions considering both worst-case and 
more realistic scenarios, as described in the previous section. Other 
acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use as streaming agents 
are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone, C7-fluoroketone).
    EPA evaluated occupational and general population exposure at 
manufacture and at end-use to ensure that the use of 2-BTP as a 
streaming agent will not pose unacceptable risks to workers or the 
general public as discussed in the previous section. Also

[[Page 86862]]

discussed previously, EPA has evaluated the risks associated with 
potential exposures to 2-BTP during production operations and the 
filling of fire extinguishers as well as in the case of an inadvertent 
discharge of the fire extinguisher during maintenance activities.
    The risks after exposure are common to many streaming agents, 
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same 
end-use, such as C6-perfluoroketone.
    EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a 
streaming agent on aircraft because the overall environmental and human 
health risk posed by the substitute is lower than or comparable to the 
overall risk posed by other alternatives listed as acceptable in the 
same end-use.
ii. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptability 
listing for 2-BTP?
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listings 
for total flooding agents, EPA is providing the following information:
     This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
     This agent is subject to requirements contained in a TSCA 
section 5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) 
SNUR.
     For establishments manufacturing, installing, and 
servicing engine nacelles and auxiliary power units on aircraft using 
this agent:
    (1) This agent should be used in accordance with the safety 
guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing 
Systems;
    (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be 
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is 
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
    (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In 
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, 
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
    (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and 
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if 
irritation develops or persists;
    (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) 
should consult a physician immediately;
    (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized 
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system 
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential 
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace 
atmosphere should be conducted;
    (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the 
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, 
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case 
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
    (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with 
good industrial hygiene practices;
    (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all 
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or 
extinguishing units filled with the agent;
    (10) Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems 
such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches 
should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA 
standards; use of this agent should also conform to relevant OSHA 
requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and 
1910.162.
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listing for 
the streaming agent end use, EPA is providing the following 
information:
     This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23-
0.26 and a short atmospheric lifetime of approximately seven days.
     This agent is subject to requirements contained in a Toxic 
Substance Control Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and any 
subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).
     For establishments manufacturing, installing and 
maintaining handheld extinguishers using this agent:
    (1) Use of this agent should be used in accordance with the latest 
edition of NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire Extinguishers;
    (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be 
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is 
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
    (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In 
case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, 
including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area.
    (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and 
footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if 
irritation develops or persists;
    (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) 
should consult a physician immediately;
    (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized 
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system 
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential 
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace 
atmosphere should be conducted;
    (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the 
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, 
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case 
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
    (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with 
good industrial hygiene practices;
    (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all 
employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or 
extinguishing units filled with the agent; and
    (10) 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in handheld 
extinguishers in aircraft should be in accordance with UL 711, Rating 
and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/
FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and number of extinguishers 
depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA Stratification and 
Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied Aircraft Compartments 
(DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
iii. When will the listing apply?
    EPA is establishing a listing date as of January 3, 2017, the same 
as the effective date of this regulation, to allow for the safe use of 
this substitute at the earliest opportunity.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    EPA received several comments from organizations with various 
interests in the fire protection industry on the proposed listing of 2-
BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a total flooding and 
streaming agent in certain aircraft applications. Comments were in 
reference to EPA's approach to the end-use categories for fire 
suppression, an expedited listing for 2-BTP based on international 
halon replacement deadline for handheld extinguishers on new aircraft, 
conditions for use including minimum volumes for aircraft compartments 
for safe handheld extinguisher use and labeling of extinguishers, and 
broadening the acceptable applications for 2-BTP. All commenters 
supported the proposed

[[Page 86863]]

listing decision, however, several commenters requested that EPA 
consider a listing date of no later than August 2016 for 2-BTP in order 
to meet an international target date of the end of 2016 for all 
aircraft entering service to use handheld extinguishers that do not use 
halon. Several commenters suggested the reference to aviation-specific 
guidance rather than UL standard as more comprehensive analysis of safe 
agent levels for handheld extinguishers used onboard aircraft.
    Commenters included the International Coordinating Council of 
Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) representing Aerospace 
Industries Associations of the United States, Europe, Canada, Brazil, 
Russia, and Japan; the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, Inc. 
(HARC), a trade association; NAM; NEDA/CAP; Boeing; Airbus also 
representing the aircraft manufacturers Bombardier, Dassault Aviation, 
and Embraer; and P3Group.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed
    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed 
acceptability listing of 2-BTP; these included Airbus, Boeing, ICCAIA, 
NAM, NEDA/CAP, and P3Group. Airbus noted the ``complexity of fighting 
fires in aircraft cabins and cockpits requires fire-fighting agents and 
equipment which also minimize health impacts on aircraft crews and 
occupants while ensuring continued safe flight and landing.'' Airbus 
also cited the ``need for . . . EPA approval of 2-BTP as a pre-
requisite to allow commercialization in the leading US civil aviation 
market. Others including Boeing, ICCAIA, NAM, and NEDA/CAP noted the 
importance of this acceptability listing to meeting the ICAO Annex 6 
deadline of December 31, 2016, for halon replacement in handheld 
extinguishers for all new production aircraft, and requested EPA to 
consider an expedited listing for 2-BTP. Airbus and HARC both urged EPA 
to continue review of other potential applications of 2-BTP and broaden 
its acceptability listings in other uses which would support the long-
term availability of the agent on the market. HARC expressed concern 
that the restriction to only aircraft use impacts the agent's 
commercial viability as an aircraft halon replacement.
    Response: EPA appreciates the interest and support offered by the 
commenters in the acceptability listing of 2-BTP. EPA is aware of the 
ICAO requirement to replace halons on handheld extinguishers on newly 
produced aircraft entering service after the end of this year. EPA has 
worked expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible 
noting that the comment period closed June 16, 2016. Regarding comments 
urging EPA to consider use of 2-BTP in other fire protection 
applications, as stated in the proposed rule, EPA is reviewing 
additional potential fire suppression applications for 2-BTP as 
identified by the submitter.
ii. Listing Date
    Comment: ICCAIA urged a final acceptability listing of 2-BTP by 
August 2016 in order to meet an international deadline for halon 
replacement in handheld extinguishers for all aircraft placed into 
service on or after December 31, 2016. That deadline was incorporated 
by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2011 into 
the revised Chicago Convention Standards and Recommended Practices 
(SARPs) for Annex 6, Operation of Aircraft, which affects already 
certified aircraft, and Annex 8, Airworthiness of Aircraft, which 
affects new aircraft types, to include deadlines for halon replacement 
in various applications on aircraft including in handheld 
extinguishers. Considering the additional design, reviews, and 
certifications required following EPA's acceptability listing for 2-
BTP, ICCAIA requested that EPA also consider the option of issuing a 
separate final rule for 2-BTP to meet this August timeline. Other 
commenters in support of ICCAIA's request for expedited listing for 2-
BTP included Airbus, Boeing, NEDA/CAP, and NAM. Airbus, Boeing, and NAM 
cited the adoption of halon replacement deadlines for civil aviation 
into the ICAO SARPs; in 2011, ICAO amended its Annex 6, Operation of 
Aircraft.
    Response: EPA appreciates the significant interest in the 
acceptability listing of 2-BTP to meet the ICAO requirement to replace 
halons on handheld extinguishers on aircraft. EPA has worked 
expeditiously to issue a final rule as quickly as possible noting that 
the comment period closed June 16, 2016. The commenters did not provide 
sufficient information to explain how an August 2016 acceptability 
listing fits into the design, specification, review, and certification 
process for new production aircraft and how it would have specifically 
affected this timeline. It is also worth noting that while the United 
States strongly supported related actions taken at ICAO on halons 
including the amendments to Annexes 6 and 8, following the final 
amendment of Annexes 6 and 8, the United States filed a difference to 
these new SARPs. As a Contracting State to the Chicago Convention, the 
United States is required to either comply with or file differences to 
the Standards contained in the ICAO Annexes; differences filed by 
member States are not considered permanent, but rather States are meant 
to continuously review the status of their differences and inform ICAO 
if and when a difference is no longer necessary.
iii. Use Conditions
    Comment: ICCAIA, Airbus, P3Group, and Boeing referred to discussion 
in the preamble regarding EPA's evaluation of potential exposure risk 
at end-use, specifically to 2-BTP discharged from handheld 
extinguishers onboard aircraft. The NPRM made reference to the UL 2129 
standard, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, which prohibits 
discharge in a confined space exceeding the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any 
fire suppressant. EPA stated that ``per UL 2129, labels for 2-BTP 
extinguishers will contain the statement, `Do not use in confined 
spaces less than 896 cubic feet per extinguisher.' '' P3Group noted 
that the UL 2129 value of 896 ft\3\ minimum confined space volume was 
based on the LOAEL for the extinguishing agent, and the extinguisher 
containing 3.75 lbs. of 2-BTP. Airbus noted that implementing the 896 
cubic feet compartment size limit as a strict requirement would exclude 
2-BTP handheld extinguishers from any smaller aircraft or even from use 
in large transport aircraft cockpits, service or crew rest compartments 
if considered, in terms of fire-fighting, as individual compartments. 
All commenters noted that the industry utilizes FAA guidance for 
determining appropriate minimum volumes relevant to aircraft 
compartments as this guidance provides more comprehensive analysis of 
acceptable agent levels under aircraft operating conditions. Airbus 
suggested text for proposed use conditions for 2-BTP including required 
labeling per UL 2129, and a listing of the minimum space volume in 
order to discharge other sizes of extinguishers on aircraft. Boeing 
commented that they disagreed with the Airbus proposed use conditions 
for 2-BTP citing that these requirements for aircraft are specified by 
the FAA guidance which the industry intends to follow.

[[Page 86864]]

    Response: EPA appreciates the clarification of the UL 2129 standard 
and the information on the relevant FAA guidance that is intended to be 
used by the industry to determine appropriate minimum volumes for 
aircraft handheld extinguishers. EPA is revising the additional 
information on 2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in 
handheld extinguishers in aircraft to indicate that use should be in 
accordance with UL 711, Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for 
Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/AR-01/37), with regard to the size and 
number of extinguishers depending on the size of aircraft, and FAA 
Stratification and Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in Occupied 
Aircraft Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC-14/50).
2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for Total 
Flooding
    While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing the PFCs 
(C4F10 and C3F8) as 
unacceptable in fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is deferring 
final action at this time. EPA plans to continue assessing the merits 
of taking action in this sector more broadly, based on additional 
information provided during the comment period on the use of 
alternatives in this end use. EPA requested advance comments on other 
alternatives, specifically SF6 and HFC-125 in total flooding and HFC-
227ea in both total flooding and streaming applications, to improve our 
understanding. We received several comments in support of the proposed 
action on PFCs and several commenters requested that EPA eliminate or 
limit the use of additional high-GWP HFCs. Other commenters requested 
that EPA take no action at this time with regard to the other 
alternatives for which EPA sought advance comments, citing current use 
in challenging applications such as aviation and the need to ensure 
their availability for these uses in the future. These comments 
provided us with additional but limited information on uses of 
SF6, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC-227ea, HFC-134a, and HFC-236fa, 
confirming the specialized, niche applications for some of these 
agents.
3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
a. Background
    Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic particulate aerosol and 
explosion suppressant that also is marketed under the trade names of 
Aero-K[supreg] and Stat-X[supreg]. This fire suppressant is supplied to 
users as a solid housed in a double-walled hermetically-sealed steel 
container. When the unit is triggered by heat (300 [deg]C), the product 
is pyrotechnically activated to produce gases and aerosol particles 
from a mixture of chemicals. EPA listed Powdered Aerosol D as 
acceptable subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR 
56359; September 7, 2006). The use conditions required that Powdered 
Aerosol D be used only in areas that are not normally occupied, because 
the Agency did not have sufficient information at that time supporting 
its safe use in areas that are normally occupied. Based on a review of 
additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of 
Powdered Aerosol D in normally occupied spaces, EPA subsequently 
determined that Powdered Aerosol D is also acceptable for use in total 
flooding systems for normally occupied spaces (79 FR 62863; October 21, 
2014). The listing provides that Powdered Aerosol D is acceptable for 
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied 
spaces. In the October 2014 listing action, EPA noted that in a 
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency would remove the previous listing of 
acceptable subject to use conditions.
b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is removing the previous listing in appendix O to 
subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 for Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable 
subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR 56359; 
September 7, 2006). This has been superseded by the listing of October 
21, 2014 (79 FR 62863) listing Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable for 
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied 
spaces.
c. How is EPA responding to comments?
    Comment: Chemours stated that it opposed the removal of the use 
restrictions for Powdered Aerosol D based on the fatalities from the 
recent incident in a bank vault in Thailand after the inadvertent 
discharge of a powdered aerosol system. Chemours noted that the 
industry still needed to learn about the appropriate use of this 
technology.
    Response: EPA is aware of the incident at the Thai bank and 
understands the investigation continues. We note that the substitute 
involved was not Powdered Aerosol D. Regarding the listing of Powdered 
Aerosol D under the SNAP program, a decision to not modify the 
acceptable subject to use conditions, as advocated by the commenter, 
will not achieve the result they are seeking. As noted, Powdered 
Aerosol D is listed as acceptable for all total flooding uses. If the 
commenter believes that there is evidence to support that Powdered 
Aerosol D cannot be used safely in some total flooding uses, they 
should submit that information to EPA and EPA could consider it to 
determine whether it should initiate rulemaking to change the 
acceptable listing.

VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?

    EPA received additional comments on topics not addressed in other 
sections of this document. These comments address a host of issues, 
including EPA's CAA authority to change the status of alternatives; 
perceived inconsistencies with the SNAP program's ``guiding 
principles;'' perceived inconsistency with other actions; and 
interactions with other rules. Additionally, some commenters requested 
status changes for end-uses or alternatives that were not included in 
the proposed rule.
    We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues 
raised by the comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate 
Response to Comments document which is included in the docket for this 
rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).

A. General Comments

1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
    Comment: Several commenters, including the Alliance, Clayton, EIA, 
NRDC, IGSD, Honeywell, NASA, Dow, and CARB generally supported EPA's 
actions related to the proposed status changes. While these commenters 
expressed their support for the SNAP program, the Alliance emphasized 
the importance of an amendment to the Montreal Protocol for a gradual 
phase-down approach to HFCs and urged caution when changing listing 
status of substitutes under the SNAP framework. The Alliance believe 
that a gradual phasedown approach is important in order to allow for 
effective technology development and introduction, to allow for the 
building codes and safety standards process to align with the newly 
available low-GWP technologies and applications, and to ensure energy 
efficiency performance is not diminished. Honeywell commented that the 
proposed listing changes would lead to significant emission reductions, 
setting an example for other countries around the world to follow. 
Clayton noted that EPA was extremely thorough in considering challenges 
posed by the proposal and engaging with

[[Page 86865]]

stakeholders. NASA noted that they take regulatory compliance seriously 
and have committed significant time and resources to implementing 
environmentally acceptable materials in their facilities and programs. 
Dow stressed that any new technologies should be built upon success 
with attainable timelines that allow the industry to innovate, develop, 
and commercialize alternative technologies for our stakeholders.
    Response: EPA thanks these commenters for supporting the proposed 
listing changes. As noted elsewhere in this document, EPA views this 
final action as complementary to the United States' support for 
adopting an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down production 
and consumption of HFCs.
    Comment: Chemours and Honeywell supported EPA's efforts to reduce 
GHG emissions associated with the use of HFCs in the production of 
insulating foams and other foam products by listing high-GWP foam 
blowing agents as unacceptable and approving technically appropriate 
lower-GWP alternatives as sufficient quantities of those lower GWP 
solutions become commercially available.
    Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' support for changing the 
status of high- GWP foam blowing agents.
    Comment: NEDA/CAP, an organization representing manufacturers of a 
variety of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment among others, 
commented that its members have recently made substantial capital 
investments replacing IPR and commercial building ACs, warehouse 
chillers, and other equipment that utilized ODS refrigerants that have 
been phased out because acceptable non-ODS refrigerants were available 
for these uses. NEDA/CAP's members are concerned that there are almost 
no acceptable, commercially available alternatives for the refrigerants 
proposed for a status change and the proposed rule would reduce demand 
for non-ODS refrigerants for new equipment. NEDA/CAP believe it is 
``unfair and unreasonable'' for EPA to propose to change the status of 
certain HFCs from acceptable to unacceptable in new equipment without 
simultaneously listing acceptable, commercially available alternatives. 
For these reasons, NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the actual 
availability of alternatives, not their theoretical availability, in 
its examination of alternatives under CAA section 612. Specifically, 
NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA evaluate the continued availability of 
acceptable alternatives for existing equipment (e.g., IPR, and 
commercial comfort and industrial cooling equipment) that may be 
affected by the proposed rule.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are almost no 
available alternatives for the substitutes for which EPA proposed a 
status change. As noted in the NPRM and section VI.A.5-9 of the 
preamble to the final rule, EPA has listed a number of alternatives as 
acceptable in new equipment in residential and light commercial AC and 
heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, and centrifugal and positive 
displacement chillers for commercial comfort AC. CO2, 
propane, isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind technologies such as 
Stirling cycle, water/lithium bromide absorption, dessicant cooling, or 
evaporative cooling, are acceptable in new equipment for one or more of 
the end-uses for which EPA proposed a change in status. The commenter 
also did not provide information as to why they believe these 
alternatives would not be viable in new equipment. Moreover, EPA does 
not agree that the change of status for certain refrigerants in 
specific uses would result in a corresponding reduction in demand for 
non-ozone-depleting refrigerants in new equipment. The overall global 
demand for refrigeration and air conditioning equipment has expanded 
while ODS are being phased out and EPA anticipates this expansion will 
continue. There will be continued use of other non-ozone-depleting 
alternatives not subject to this action in new equipment.
    Comment: NEDA/CAP commented that EPA should address in the 
rulemaking (1) EPA's analysis of the impact of the proposed status 
changes on the refrigerant supply base for existing affected 
refrigeration and cooling equipment; (2) whether the supply base for 
this existing equipment will remain viable for the expected life of 
recently replaced equipment; (3) what the economic impacts are for 
businesses related to the inevitable drop in demand for existing 
refrigerants; (4) whether alternative refrigerants other than propane 
will be available and what the conditions for their use will be; (5) 
the impact of the proposal on the production of current acceptable HFCs 
and propylene and indicate what the alternatives available are for 
retrofit of existing equipment if existing chemical producers cease 
manufacturing these compounds as a result of the proposed rule.
    Response: EPA has provided information in the docket to this 
rulemaking and in the preamble to the July 2015 rule concerning changes 
in the production of both fluorinated and non-fluorinated alternatives 
to ODS. EPA has no information to suggest there will be a shortage in 
refrigerant supply for existing equipment.
    This action does not require retrofitting existing equipment. EPA 
is confident there will be adequate supply to service existing 
equipment either based on continued production or based on recovery and 
reuse of existing supplies of the refrigerants undergoing a change of 
status. EPA bases this judgment on our historical experience. For 
example, CFC chillers can still be serviced even though we have had no 
production or import of newly produced CFCs since 1996. Similarly, 
halons continued to be used even though we ceased production and import 
of newly produced halons in 1994. HCFC-22 was phased out of production 
for new equipment as of 2010, but is still being produced and used for 
existing equipment.
    EPA's action does not ban production of any HFC and as noted above, 
some of the HFCs will be blended with HFOs to develop new refrigerants. 
While there may be a shift between chemical or refrigerant producers, 
it is not clear that there will be a loss for these companies and 
demand may increase in other global markets. It is possible that the 
price of refrigerants undergoing a status change will increase if 
supplies decrease relative to demand. End users with existing equipment 
may take steps to reduce the impact of price changes on the open market 
such as recovering and recycling their refrigerant, as many 
supermarkets currently do with HCFC-22.
    As noted throughout this rule, we anticipate many refrigerants will 
be available and not just propane. Propane is only acceptable for a 
limited number of refrigeration and AC end-uses, including household 
refrigerators and freezers, and is not currently listed as acceptable 
for chillers, cold storage warehouses, or retail food refrigeration--
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. EPA has listed a 
number of HFO and HFO/HFC refrigerants as acceptable with no use 
conditions for use in each of the refrigeration and AC end-uses 
undergoing a change of status in this rule (e.g., R-450A and R-513A for 
all these end-uses; HFO-1336mzz(Z), HCFO-1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E) and 
R-514A for centrifugal chiller). In addition, CO2 and 
ammonia are acceptable refrigerants in retail food

[[Page 86866]]

refrigeration--refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment 
and ammonia is acceptable in cold storage warehouses.
    Chemical producers may continue to produce the HFCs undergoing a 
change of status for uses that are acceptable including for servicing 
of existing equipment and for end-uses that are not subject to a change 
of status. In the case of propylene, that refrigerant has only been 
listed as acceptable as a refrigerant in IPR, and EPA has not proposed 
to change that status. Nothing in this action calls for retrofitting. 
However, we note that EPA has published lists of acceptable 
refrigerants for new equipment and retrofits, and these are available 
at https://www.epa.gov/snap/refrigeration-and-air-conditioning.
2. Proposed Status Change Dates
    Comment: The Alliance appreciated that EPA considered the DOE 
energy conservation standards for the rulemaking, but urged the Agency 
to better coordinate the proposed status change dates with the ongoing 
DOE energy conservation rulemaking schedules.
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment. The Agency and DOE have 
increased our dialogue to better understand the timing that each is 
taking under our separate authorities.
    Comment: Arkema, NAFEM, and UTC requested that EPA delay the change 
of status dates to provide adequate time for product research and 
development, product testing, certification, and time for the approved 
alternatives to become widely available on the marketplace. Arkema 
noted that the proposed rule seems to acknowledge these difficulties 
only for uses involving either the federal government or the 
aeronautics industry, giving extra time for military, space, and 
aeronautics applications to transition from HFCs in foam blowing and in 
chillers. Arkema also stated that if the rule is finalized as proposed, 
EPA should allow all users to claim an exemption based on the 
unavailability of feasible alternatives or explain the standard (e.g., 
availability of alternatives, cost, environmental benefits, etc.) it is 
trying to satisfy in setting the change of status dates. NAFEM 
requested an extension of at least 10 years for the proposed status 
changes to allow sufficient time for safe product development and 
testing, while Arkema suggested specific dates for specific substitutes 
and end-uses, ranging from 2021 for 407A-F in new chillers, 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing, and cold storage 
warehouses to 2025 for most applications of R-134a and R-410A. UTC 
stated that EPA should not implement the change of status for HFC-134a 
before 2025, which would allow time for system redesign, testing, and 
to change state and local codes in cases where the refrigerants are 
flammable. UTC believes that any change of status dates earlier than 
January 1, 2025, would effectively lead to a ban on the sale of air 
cooled chillers in many states and force customers to use existing 
units or to switch to lower efficiency packaged products and VRF 
systems that are still allowed to use R-410A. While EPA and large parts 
of the industry are committed to a transition away from HFC 
refrigerants, there is simply no forcing mechanism at the state and 
local level that would lead to near-immediate adoption of the necessary 
code changes.
    Response: EPA looked at each change of status independently and has 
provided a rationale for the specific date for each end-use affected by 
this final rule. EPA does not agree that any specific minimal number of 
years should be required for a change of status and notes that there 
may be instances where immediate action is justified. With regards to 
NAFEM's comments supporting an extension, it is not clear if NAFEM is 
requesting additional time for an end-use covered in this action or 
whether the request concerns the July 2015 rule, which is beyond the 
scope of this action. EPA disagrees with Arkema's comments regarding 
the availability of alternatives. EPA has listed as acceptable 
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the 
environment than the substitutes we are listing as unacceptable, which 
supports a transition away from the substitutes that we have concluded 
provide a greater risk to human health and the environment. The 
commenter did not provide information as to why these alternatives 
would not be viable in the end-uses addressed in this action.
    Comment: NAFEMF suggested that EPA provide manufacturers an 
opportunity to qualify for additional status change extensions under 
SNAP's grandfathering provisions. They noted that EPA has historically 
allowed manufacturers that transitioned to a substitute deemed 
acceptable by the Agency to continue using the previously acceptable 
substitute until the current supply was used up, even if that occurred 
after the rule's compliance date.
    Response: While EPA is not applying ``grandfathering'' in this 
rulemaking, we have established status change dates for different 
sectors and end-uses that reflect the date by which we expect 
alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the 
environment will be available, both for existing and new users of 
certain substitutes. In considering when alternatives will be available 
for these other end-uses, we have considered the technical challenges 
that the end users are facing with the transition. Under both the 
approach used in this rule and the grandfathering approach, we consider 
whether there is a basis to establish the change of status later than 
the effective date of the rulemaking and thus the approaches result in 
a similar outcome.
    Comment: Johnson Controls commented that there is speculation that 
EPA chose the change of status dates in this rule to meet obligations 
proposed in the North American amendment proposal to the Montreal 
Protocol.
    Response: The change of status dates in this rule were arrived at 
after careful consideration of the availability of other substitutes in 
each end-use. These decisions were informed by extensive consultation 
with stakeholders throughout the rulemaking process. While the United 
States is seeking an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, it is not 
clear what control measures, if any, might be adopted. The changes in 
status here relate to use in the United States of alternatives that are 
safer overall for human health and the environment.
    Comment: Arkema provided a list of steps needed for ``product line 
development'' including ``researching options, risk assessment, 
analyzing existing manufacturing capabilities, working with component 
suppliers, building test units, testing beta units, updating 
manufacturing processes (including employee training), building pre-
production units, field testing, completing the customer approval 
process, phasing in production, disposing of trapped inventory, and 
training installation and maintenance personnel'' and ensuring 
``products conform to local building codes.'' For new cold storage 
warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment, Arkema suggested a 2021 transition date for R-407A, R-407B, 
R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, and R-407F, claiming that ``[t]his decision 
should mirror previous supermarket decisions for new and retrofit 
applications.'' For HFC-134a, they proposed a 2025 status change date 
and as their ``[r]ationale'' only stated ``[s]upply, suitability of 
alternatives.''
    Response: The commenter is mistaken as to EPA's previous action for 
the supermarket systems end-use category within the retail food 
refrigeration end-use. In SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870; July

[[Page 86867]]

20, 2015), EPA changed the status of only one of the identified 
refrigerants (R-407B) for this end use and established a January 1, 
2017 status change date for new equipment.
    For the reasons provided in section VI.A.6 and in our proposal, we 
have determined that January 1, 2023 is a reasonable but expeditious 
date for the change of status for new cold storage warehouses. For new 
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, the recommended 
2021 date for the R-407 series refrigerants matched our proposal and 
for the reasons provided in section VI.A.7 and our proposal we have 
finalized that change of status date.
    The commenter did not otherwise provide any support for why a 
bifurcated 2021 and 2025 change of status date was sufficient and 
needed to address the technical challenges for either the cold storage 
warehouse end-use or the refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment end-use category. For the 2025 date, the commenter provided 
no justification for why the supply or suitability of existing 
alternatives was not sufficient to support the proposed January 1, 
2023, status change date for cold storage warehouses but would be to 
support a January 1, 2025, date. The commenter did not provide any 
evidence that supply of alternatives was lacking to justify their 
proposed 2025 status change date for HFC-134a in both end-uses. EPA had 
already determined that not to be true in a previous rulemaking (80 FR 
42904; July 20, 2015). Further, the commenter did not indicate why the 
supply for HFC-134a alternatives in either end-use would not be 
available until 2025 yet the supply of alternatives for the R-407 
series refrigerants would be available by 2021, or why the set of 
alternatives would be different.

B. Authority

1. General Authority
    Comment: EIA supported EPA's authority to regulate substances 
within a comparative risk framework. EIA commented that EPA's SNAP 
program was created to assure the health and environmental safety of 
alternatives for ODS that were being phased out, which is achieved 
through EPA's comparative review process. EIA also indicated that the 
proposed rule is an important step towards implementing the President's 
CAP.
    Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule.
    Comment: Arkema, AHAM, and Mexichem expressed the opinion that the 
proposed rule is outside the scope of EPA's regulatory authority. 
Similar to their comments submitted in response to the NPRM for the 
July 2015 rule, the commenters stated that the purpose of the original 
SNAP program was to evaluate substitutes for ODS, and that now using 
this same framework to evaluate non-ODS against other non-ODS on the 
basis of GWP, for example, violates the authority granted under CAA 
section 612. They argued that these new compounds are not substitutes 
for ODS, and thus are not real ``substitutes'' in the context of the 
original SNAP framework. Arkema emphasized its support for an HFC 
amendment to the Montreal Protocol, but asserted that EPA is proposing 
to ``replace non-ODS with new non-ODS chemicals based on [GWP],'' which 
goes against the mandate of CAA section 612 to ``replace'' ODS. AHAM 
stated that CAA Title VI was not intended to ``provide EPA broad, 
general and roving authority to regulate refrigerants, foams and 
chemicals in whatever circumstances it deems desirable if they are 
unrelated to ozone depletion.'' Likewise, Mexichem asserted that the 
repeated references to class I and class II substances in Title VI 
demonstrate that, in enacting CAA section 612, Congress was concerned 
with phasing out ODS, and that there is ``no mention in section 612 (or 
its legislative history) that Congress ever intended for this law to be 
used to regulate second-generation substances on the basis of [GWP].''
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it lacks the 
authority to regulate the continuing replacement of ODS with the 
substitutes whose listing status is addressed in this action. In this 
rulemaking, EPA considered whether such replacement should continue to 
occur given the expanded suite of other alternatives to ODS in the 
relevant end-uses and our evolving understanding of risks to the 
environment and public health. There is no question that the 
substitutes subject to a change in status in this action (e.g., HFC-
134a) directly replaced ODS in the relevant sectors. See section 
VII.A.2 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule for additional discussion 
of non-ODS alternatives.
    Comment: AHAM stated that this proposal violates Executive Orders 
12866 (9-30-93), 13563 (1-18-2011), and 13610 (5-10-12) requiring that 
agencies consider the cumulative effects of regulations, including 
cumulative burden. AHAM commented that given the new energy efficiency 
standards placed on the appliance industry, being forced to also comply 
with the timeline and additional restrictions proposed in this 
rulemaking would be unnecessarily burdensome on affected entities. They 
especially emphasized the minimal difference in emissions saved by 
prematurely transitioning the industry to these substitutes.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
proposed rule violates Executive Order 13563, given that there is 
currently no DOE standard that results in cumulative regulatory burden 
with this rule. Further, we expect that with a change of status date of 
January 1, 2021, for household refrigerators and freezers, companies 
would be able to coordinate compliance with an energy conservation 
standard with a compliance date in 2020. Thus, we believe that in fact, 
the potential cumulative impacts of the two sets of regulations are 
reasonable. See also the discussion in section VI.A.8.ii on the change 
of status dates for household refrigerators and freezers.
2. GWP Considerations
    Comment: Mexichem commented that EPA focuses the analysis of HFC-
134a on comparative GWP instead of conducting a comprehensive analysis 
that considers all of the agency's criteria--atmospheric effects, 
exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, and other 
environmental impacts, such as ecotoxicity and local air quality 
impacts--as well as a full alternatives analysis of performance, 
availability, hazard, exposure, and cost of the alternatives. Arkema 
also commented that EPA relies on the differences in GWP to justify the 
proposed status changes, but fails to explain why those differences 
result in a larger risk for certain HFCs in each end-use. For example, 
Arkema stated that EPA does not explain the rationale for proposing to 
change the status from acceptable to unacceptable for some high-GWP 
substitutes, such as R-407A with a GWP of 2,107, but not R-407F with a 
GWP of 1,824, for cold storage warehouses.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it relies solely 
on GWP in the evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. In 
all cases, EPA considers the intersection between the specific 
alternative and the particular end-use and the availability of 
substitutes for those particular end-uses. When reviewing a substitute, 
EPA compares the risk posed by that substitute to the risks posed by 
other alternatives and determines whether that specific substitute 
under review poses significantly more risk than other alternatives for 
the same use. In our analysis of overall risk, we evaluate the criteria 
at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). . For particular substances, EPA found 
significant potential differences in risk with respect to one or more 
specific criteria, such as flammability, toxicity,

[[Page 86868]]

or local air quality concerns, while otherwise posing comparable levels 
of risk to those of other alternatives in specific end-uses. Regarding 
GWP, that is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall 
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. There are a 
number of examples in this rulemaking where we determined not to change 
the status of HFC-134a, for example, because the GWP of other 
alternatives is a concern for a specific use. For particular 
substances, such as R-407A, EPA found significant potential differences 
in risk with respect to one or more specific criteria, such as GWP, 
while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk to those of other 
alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA also notes that several 
decisions included in this action are based on significant potential 
differences with respect to other factors including flammability, and 
local air quality. For example, we are listing propylene and R-443A as 
unacceptable in centrifugal chillers, positive displacement chillers, 
cold storage warehouses, and residential and light commercial AC and 
heat pumps in particular because of concerns about local air quality. 
We are listing all refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 and all refrigerants meeting the criteria 
for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 as 
unacceptable for use in retrofit unitary split AC systems and heat 
pumps in the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat 
pumps end-use.
    Concerning differences in GWP values and how EPA decided to change 
the status of certain alternatives while other alternatives remained 
acceptable, EPA did not establish bright-line cutoffs but rather 
considered which substitutes are available on an end-use by end-use 
basis. For the example of refrigerants in the cold storage warehouse 
end-use that Arkema cites, we considered that R-407F has the lowest GWP 
of the refrigerant blends that are both widely commercially available 
and can be used for those situations and types of equipment where HCFC-
22 is used. R-407A has a higher GWP and otherwise is comparable to R-
407F, and thus results in higher overall risk to human health and the 
environment.
    See also section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and 
section 6.3.3 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM for that rule 
for additional information on GWP considerations under the SNAP 
program.
    Comment: Arkema commented that EPA makes GWP the sole criterion for 
decisions about atmospheric effects, instead of basing it on the 
``total [GWP] of the substitute and the indirect contributions to 
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute (e.g., 
changes in energy efficiency), and environmental release data, 
including available information on any pollution controls used or that 
could be used in association with the substitute.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that GWP was the only criterion considered 
in determining whether to change the status of a substitute. Further 
information and explanation on use of GWP as a metric is provided in 
section VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 rule and in the 
following response. Considerations of atmospheric effects and related 
health and environmental impacts have always been a part of SNAP's 
comparative review process, and the provision of GWP-related 
information is required by the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and 
82.180). The issue of EPA's authority to consider GWP in its SNAP 
listing decisions was raised in the initial rule establishing the SNAP 
program. In the preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, EPA stated: ``The 
Agency believes that the Congressional mandate to evaluate substitutes 
based on reducing overall risk to human health and the environment 
authorizes use of global warming as one of the SNAP evaluation 
criteria. Public comment failed to identify any definition of overall 
risk that warranted excluding global warming'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 
1994). Consistent with that understanding, the 1994 SNAP rule 
specifically included ``atmospheric effects and related health and 
environmental impacts'' as evaluation criteria the Agency uses in 
undertaking comparative risk assessments (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994; 
40 CFR 82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also established the requirement 
that anyone submitting a notice of intent to introduce a substitute 
into interstate commerce provide the substitute's GWP (see 40 CFR 
82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, we have considered the relative GWP of 
alternatives in many SNAP listing decisions. EPA did not propose to 
revise its regulations to abandon consideration of GWP in this rule.
    In response to comments that EPA failed to assess and account for 
indirect climate impacts, we note that we do not have a practice in the 
SNAP program of including indirect climate impacts in the overall risk 
analysis. EPA initially contemplated such considerations in the initial 
SNAP rule, but our experience has been that it is impractical to 
perform a detailed analysis of indirect global warming impacts 
associated with a particular substitute. For example, the inherent 
energy efficiency of the substitute is not the same as the energy 
efficiency of equipment using that substitute. To analyze energy 
efficiency and other indirect climate impacts would require EPA to 
identify not only every type of equipment but also each model, identify 
or predict the amount of each available substitute that might be used 
in each type of equipment, make assumptions about how the equipment 
would be operated, assess what type of electricity was used to both 
manufacture the substance and power the equipment or manufacturing 
process, and so on. See the July 2015 rule, 80 FR at 42921 and section 
6.4.2 of the response to comments document for that rule. We do, 
however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency 
(e.g., to meet DOE standards) in determining whether alternatives are 
``available,'' and have followed that practice in this rulemaking. We 
believe that there is a sufficient range of acceptable alternatives 
that end users will be able to maintain energy efficiency levels. We 
also note that federal energy conservation standards will continue to 
ensure that equipment regulated by this rule will not increase its 
indirect climate impacts.
    Comment: Honeywell commented that even greater emissions reductions 
could be projected by using more up-to-date GWP values. Honeywell 
commented that the use of out-of-date GWP values in such an important 
rule can cause confusion, especially among those trying to evaluate and 
compare low-GWP technologies. Instead of GWP values from the IPCC 
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Honeywell suggested that EPA consider 
adopting the IPCC AR5 GWP values in the future.
    Response: EPA used the GWP values in the IPCC AR4 in the NPRM and 
continues to use these in this final rulemaking to maintain consistency 
with other rules and facets of the SNAP program and with other U.S. 
domestic programs (e.g., EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, 
codified at 40 CFR part 98). Using consistent GWPs allows for more 
efficient operation of U.S. climate programs and facilitates 
integration with other public and private sector programs on 
international, national, state, and local levels. It also reduces the 
burden on stakeholders of keeping track of separate GWPs when 
interacting with these programs. Use of the AR4 GWPs will also ensure 
compatibility with the Climate Action Report and other reporting 
requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention

[[Page 86869]]

on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries, including the United States, 
that submit GHG inventories under the UNFCCC have decided to use AR4 
GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 GWPs, beginning with the inventories 
submitted in 2015.\216\ Adoption of AR5 GWPs while other EPA and 
international programs are using AR4 GWPs likely would cause 
stakeholder confusion, create an ongoing need to explain the 
distinction in GWPs in subsequent actions, and complicate decision-
making. Also, use of AR4 GWPs ensures that the SNAP program uses widely 
relied on, published, peer-reviewed GWP data. EPA may consider adoption 
of AR5 GWPs or other GWP values in the future. In any event, use of AR5 
GWPs would not result in a change in EPA's conclusions about the 
comparative risk posed by the substitutes addressed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment Reports, 
including updated and expanded sets of GWPs, approximately every six 
years. The countries that submit annual GHG inventories under the 
UNFCCC update the GWPs that they use for those inventories less 
frequently. For example, the GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment 
Report have been used for UNFCCC reporting for over a decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: CARB recommended establishing specific numerical limits 
for GWP of acceptable substitutes in certain end-uses. They recommended 
prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 150 in cold 
storage warehouses, refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment and household refrigerators and freezers. For chillers, CARB 
recommended prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP greater than 750.
    Response: EPA has not set ``bright line'' cut offs based on GWP or 
the other SNAP criteria, for reasons explained in numerous actions, 
including section IV.B of the SNAP Proposed Rule 20 (79 FR 46135; 
August 6, 2014), sections IV.B and V.C.6.(a) of the corresponding final 
Rule 20 (80 FR 42920; July 20, 2015), section I.A of the proposed rule 
(81 FR 22812-22813; April 18, 2016), and section I.A of this final 
rule. As noted in those actions, the structure of the SNAP program, 
which is based on a comparative framework of available substitutes for 
a specific end-use at the time a decision is being made, does not 
support the use of such bright lines.
3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
    Comment: Arkema commented that the proposed rule fails to follow 
EPA's policies in the guiding principles, fails to consider all 
relevant information as defined by regulation, and fails to apply the 
regulatory criteria for SNAP evaluation when determining if a 
substitute poses more risk than other alternatives for the same end-
use. Arkema stated that EPA's policy has been to restrict a SNAP 
substitute only if it is significantly worse than the alternatives; 
however, the proposed rule ``relies on differences in [GWP] to justify 
reclassification.'' Arkema further commented that, according to 40 CFR 
82.178(a)(6), EPA is to consider information concerning GWP, including 
both the total GWP of the substitute and the indirect contributions to 
global warming caused by the production or use of the substitute, and 
environmental release data, including available information on any 
pollution controls used or that could be used in association with the 
substitute. Arkema believes EPA fails to follow these principles and 
instead, makes GWP the sole criterion for decisions about atmospheric 
effects. Finally, Arkema commented that the proposed rule states ``EPA 
is not setting a risk threshold for any specific SNAP criterion, such 
that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a specified level 
of risk.'' Arkema believes this statement violates EPA's policy to 
regulate only significant risk in a specific end-use because it asserts 
that the Agency ``can ban a substance to reduce any risk, regardless of 
the magnitude of the risk.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the proposed rule 
violates the Agency's regulations or guiding principles. See the 
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42940-42. We consider the 
proposed and final rules to be consistent with the SNAP guiding 
principles:
    1. First guiding principle: Evaluate substitutes within a 
comparative risk framework. As suggested by the first guiding 
principle, in all of the actions that EPA proposed and is today 
finalizing, EPA evaluated the risk of substitutes compared to available 
or potentially available alternatives. In that effort, a range of risk 
factors are well described in this action. The factors that EPA 
considers are stated at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
    2. Second guiding principle: Do not require that substitutes be 
risk free to be found acceptable. EPA has not required substitutes to 
be risk free. We acknowledge in the proposed and final rules that both 
the substitutes changing status and the other available alternatives 
have risks. In this rule, as in past SNAP rules, we have considered 
whether there are alternatives that are available or potentially 
available that pose a lower overall risk to human health and the 
environment in specific end-uses and end-use categories.
    3. Third guiding principle: Restrict those substitutes that are 
significantly worse. EPA has based our decisions on whether substitutes 
have significantly greater risk than other available substitutes for 
the same uses. For example, we did not propose and are not finalizing 
today changes in status where there is only a marginal difference in 
risk between two alternatives available or potentially available in the 
same end-use. As described in the preambles to the proposed and final 
rules, the Agency carefully considered the substances addressed in this 
action on the basis of the SNAP criteria, and concluded that other 
alternatives presented a degree of reduced overall risk sufficient to 
warrant the actions being taken in this rulemaking. In response to the 
comment that the NPRM compares GWPs without explaining the significance 
of the differences for any effect on climate, EPA did not estimate 
differences in temperature change or other physical climate metrics due 
to the impacts of the rule. EPA has not used these metrics in the past 
as measures of climate impact for other SNAP decisions. See section 
II.G and III on the use of GWP as a metric for climate impact and the 
significance of the rule for climate.
    4. Fourth guiding principle: Evaluate risks by use. EPA evaluated 
substitutes for specific uses and reached different conclusions for the 
same substitute in different uses, depending on the specific risks and 
other available or potentially available alternatives in the relevant 
uses. For example, we are listing propane as acceptable, subject to use 
conditions in new self-contained commercial ice machines, new water 
coolers, and new very low temperature refrigeration equipment, while 
listing propane and all other ASHRAE flammability Class 3 refrigerants 
as unacceptable for retrofitting existing unitary split systems within 
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. No action was taken 
to ban any one HFC or other alternative across all end-uses. 
Additionally, as noted by the commenter, we considered the potential 
risks of alternatives used for servicing of MVAC or commercial 
refrigeration apart from new equipment or from retrofits of existing 
equipment. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the NPRM 
for the July 2015 rule.
    5. Fifth guiding principle: Provide the regulated community with 
information as soon as possible. EPA provided the regulated community 
with information as soon as possible by holding a series of workshops 
and public meetings

[[Page 86870]]

concerning this action and other regulatory issues relevant to various 
industrial sectors over the course of more than a year before we issued 
our proposal. See section 6.3.6 of the Response to Comments for the 
NPRM for the July 2015 rule.
    6. Sixth guiding principle: Do not endorse products manufactured by 
specific companies. Our change of status decisions reflect the 
availability of multiple alternatives for each end-use. Regarding 
endorsements, see section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the July 2015 rule 
at 80 FR 42896.
    7. Seventh guiding principle: Defer to other environmental 
regulations when warranted. We note that this reads ``Defer to other 
environmental regulations when warranted'' (emphasis added). Other 
regulations may not ensure that substitutes that pose significantly 
greater risk are prohibited where safer alternatives are available 
because those regulations do not address all or address sufficiently 
the risk posed. EPA has considered the potential impacts of other 
environmental, health, and safety regulations. EPA carefully considered 
these and other existing regulations under other programs when 
reviewing substitutes. For example, we considered the presence of OSHA 
regulations in addressing flammability risk in factories where foam is 
blown. EPA did not propose and is not finalizing a change in how this 
principle is applied. EPA continues to consider other environmental, 
health and safety regulations and notes these regulations where 
appropriate in our decisions. We also considered the existing MACT 
standard that prohibits the use of methylene chloride in flexible PU 
foam production for major sources, including relying on the risk 
analysis performed for EPA's recent risk review of the MACT. See 
sections VI.A.2 and VI.C.4 regarding EPA's consideration of other 
stratospheric ozone regulations.
    Concerning consideration of all relevant information as defined by 
regulation, we note that it is within the discretion of the Agency to 
determine which information is relevant out of the total set of 
information in EPA's possession. The specific information that must be 
provided to EPA for review under the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR 82.178 
informs, but does not govern, EPA's decisional criteria for review of 
substitutes under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7).
    Concerning Arkema's quotation from the proposed rule, it states 
that we do not use the same ``bright line'' risk threshold for all 
substances. This is consistent with EPA's guiding principles, where we 
consider comparative risk of the available substitutes within an end-
use. From a scientific point of view, it would be inappropriate, and 
potentially not protective, for EPA to use the same concentration in 
ppm to determine flammability risks or toxic concentrations for 
different substitutes, rather than considering the LFL or exposure 
limit for the specific substitute.
    Comment: Arkema commented that the military, NASA, and the 
aeronautics industry would have special exceptions for certain chiller 
and spray-foam applications for which there appears to be little 
supporting technical detail in the record, but that at least for 
chillers are based on the relative significance of the associated 
emissions. Arkema asked what the effect on the atmosphere would be if 
the entire private sector had the benefits of the proposed narrowed use 
limits for military marine vessels, human-rated spacecraft, and related 
support equipment.
    Response: We expect that the rest of the private sector would not 
meet the requirements for a narrowed use limit because substitutes that 
are acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, may only be used where 
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives 
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements. 
Multiple alternatives with lower GWPs are available for chillers and 
equipment manufacturers are already implementing them; 
217 218 thus, other alternatives are technically feasible. 
See also sections VI.A.5.i and VI.A.6.i of this rule for a discussion 
of available alternatives. This is different from the situation for 
military marine vessels and human-rated spacecraft and related support 
equipment which have many unique characteristics that make it more 
difficult and time-consuming to evaluate and implement alternatives; 
see the preamble to the NPRM at 81 FR 22844, 22848 (April 18, 2016). In 
addition, the time periods for qualification of products to meet 
specifications for the military or for space flight and aeronautics-
related applications are significant. For example, in the case of 
foams, one aerospace company stated that it would take more than two 
years to develop, test and qualify a new alternative, and it will take 
at least another five years ``to manufacture flight-representative foam 
samples, followed by ground and flight testing,'' and then additional 
time to retool their facilities to manufacture the foam with an 
alternative blowing agent.\219\ NASA began development of spray 
polyurethane foams using HFC-245fa in 2007 and only now in 2016 expects 
to complete qualification.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Press release, ``Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC Portfolio 
Using Next Generation, Low Global Warming Refrigerant, R-452B'', 
June 16, 2016.
    \218\ Press release, ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal 
Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the United States and 
Canada.'' July 13, 2016.
    \219\ The Boeing Company. Comments on Proposed Rule to Change 
the Status of Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. October, 2014.
    \220\ Spray Foam Magazine, 2016. ``SPF and SLS Help NASA Explore 
Deep Space'' September/October issue, 2016. This document is 
accessible at: http://sprayfoammagazine.com/spf-sls-help-nasa-explore-deep-space/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not base the narrowed use limits for centrifugal and 
positive displacement compressor chillers for military marine vessels 
or for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment 
applications on the relative significance of the associated emissions; 
rather, for informational purposes, we indicated that emissions were 
not expected to be significant. EPA's decisions are based on the 
comparative risk of various alternatives considering the SNAP criteria, 
not based on achieving a specific climate benefit. EPA provided 
information concerning the estimated climate benefits associated with 
the proposed and final rule. EPA did not calculate the benefits or 
atmospheric impacts from every possible scenario.
    Comment: AHRI, the Alliance, HARC and NEDA/CAP all urged 
consistency in EPA's stance on and implementation of the SNAP program. 
AHRI and HARC encouraged EPA to adhere closely to the principles of the 
Agency's position at the Montreal Protocol and the initial 1994 SNAP 
framework. The Alliance requested (1) that EPA clarify how the proposal 
is consistent with a global phase-down approach to HFCs, (2) that EPA 
articulate how the SNAP program would be used in the context of 
implementing an HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and (3) that 
for any future rulemakings for a change of SNAP listing status, EPA 
publish a clear and predictable evaluation process by which risk 
factors are compared in the comparative risk framework to make SNAP 
change of status decisions with transparency on how the factors will be 
weighted. NEDA/CAP expressed concern about the greater frequency of new 
rules and listings and the ``rolling and complex schedule'' of change 
of status dates, which could complicate industry's ability to operate 
the installed base of existing equipment using refrigerants proposed to 
undergo a change of status in new equipment. NEDA/CAP suggested that 
EPA provide a ``master schedule'' for the review and

[[Page 86871]]

listing of substitutes, given the fact that ``EPA's increasingly 
`piecemeal' new approach to SNAP revisions creates other business 
planning problems and potentially significant equipment compatibility 
issues for existing refrigerant, chiller and cooling equipment.''
    Response: EPA considers this final rule to be consistent with the 
framework in the initial SNAP rule, as explained in section II of the 
NPRM at 81 FR 22816-9 and in section II of this preamble. This rule 
concerns specific uses of certain alternatives to ODS, including some 
HFCs, while the North American Proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol 
to add a global phase-down of HFCs concerns HFC production and 
consumption generally without reference to specific uses. Reductions in 
use of certain HFCs in specific end uses due to changes of status under 
the SNAP program are expected to result in decreased production of 
those HFCs, which would contribute to the United States' ability to 
implement reductions in production and consumption of HFCs under a 
global phase-down of HFCs along the lines of the North American 
Proposal.
    With regard to specific quantification of reductions in overall 
risk to human health and the environment, in the 1994 rulemaking, we 
considered and rejected comments suggesting that we develop an index to 
rank all substitutes based on risk. In the preamble to the rule, we 
specifically noted that ``a strict quantitative index would not allow 
for sufficient flexibility in making appropriate risk management 
decisions'' (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). See July 2015 SNAP rule at 
80 FR 42940. Concerning NEDA/CAP's comment about the frequency of 
recent rulemakings and listings, EPA notes that we have the authority 
to change the status of a previously listed alternative and mentioned 
this as a possibility in the initial SNAP rulemaking. See the preamble 
to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42939-40. Further, the CAP has guided 
EPA in our decision to issue more frequent listings as well as 
rulemakings including changes of status. We also note that some of our 
recent decisions mentioned by NEDA/CAP have provided additional 
alternatives for both new and retrofits of existing equipment, which 
would have no impact on the production of other alternatives or on 
existing equipment manufactured with other alternatives. Concerning 
NEDA/CAP's comment about the potential impact of the rule on existing 
equipment, see the discussion in section VII.A.1.
    Comment: AHAM commented that EPA has no justification for changing 
the listing status of compounds of which the toxicity, GWP, efficiency 
and other criteria of evaluation remain unchanged.
    Response: EPA disagrees. The suite of available or potentially 
available alternatives changes over time and the availability of those 
alternatives enables a broader review of comparative risk under section 
612(c). Further, our understanding of the impact that HFCs have on 
climate has evolved and become much deeper over the years. See the 
preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42935-6.
    Comment: Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and 
R-407B for cold storage warehouse, and should find R-448A and R-449A 
acceptable for that end-use as well as for refrigerated food processing 
and dispensing equipment, AHRI stated that the ``direct refrigerant 
emissions in these end uses represent a small percentage of the overall 
life cycle climate performance'' and that overall greenhouse gas 
emissions will increase if a less efficient product were used.
    Response: EPA interprets this comment to be based on the SNAP 
review criteria of ``atmospheric effects,'' which is discussed above in 
section II.E.1. We have noted that part of our review of the overall 
risk to human health and the environment that substitutes pose includes 
the GWP of a particular substitute, and the GWPs of R-407A and R-407B 
are higher than those of other alternatives in the cold storage 
warehouse end-use. Our conclusion as discussed in section VI.A.6.b.i 
above was that these refrigerants pose overall greater risk than other 
alternatives. With respect to R-448A and R-449A in both end-uses, we 
noted in sections VI.A.6.c.i and VI.A.7.b.ii above that EPA is 
currently evaluating those refrigerants for these end-uses but has not 
yet issued either a proposed decision or a Notice of Acceptability for 
these refrigerants in these end-uses.
    The reader is referred to sections VII.B.2 above and VII.D.3. As 
discussed in response to other comments in section VII.D.3 below, 
energy efficiency is not a specific criterion under SNAP, and indirect 
GHG emissions may vary based on energy efficiency of the appliance. As 
discussed in response to comment in section VII.B.2 above, EPA 
initially contemplated considering indirect climate impacts as part of 
our overall risk analysis in the initial SNAP rule, but our experience 
has been that it is impractical to perform a detailed analysis of 
indirect global warming impacts associated with a particular 
substitute.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

    EPA received comments from Arkema, NAFEM, Structural Composites and 
Compsys, AHAM, and UTC in which commenters provided data on the cost 
and economic impacts of the proposed rule. These comments are 
summarized in the response to comments sections for the end-uses 
addressed in this final rule. We summarize and respond to the more 
general cost comments in this section.
1. Costs of Rule
    Comment: EPA received comments suggesting that EPA provide more 
time for the changes in status in order to avoid undue burden on the 
U.S. economy. UTC commented that if this rule is finalized as proposed, 
industries and companies utilizing many of the refrigerants and 
propellants affected by this rule will need to invest substantial 
resources in order to promote compliance with the intended transition 
over the next decade. AHAM stated that under EPA's proposed change of 
status dates, the costs would be significantly higher during the 
transition to an alternative refrigerant as compared to a date three 
years later, which would allow companies adequate time to structure 
costs and decrease risk over multiple years and at almost half the 
cost. AHRI noted that accelerating the process for changing multiple 
product platforms by even a single year can significantly impact 
manufacturers' costs and resources burden. Arkema commented that no 
SNAP rule should impose unreasonable burdens on the U.S. economy. 
Arkema recommended that EPA allow more time for transitions to avoid 
that outcome.
    Response: EPA understands that there are challenges associated with 
transitioning substitutes, including costs to manufacturers in 
redesigning equipment and making changes to manufacturing facilities. 
As an initial matter, and as discussed more fully in section VII.A.3, 
under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), 
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under 
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition 
when a substitute is found unacceptable.
    The transition timelines in this final rule are based on 
information concerning the availability of alternatives. While EPA does 
not consider the cost of transition in its analysis, EPA recognizes 
that later dates allow industry time to plan and to spread out capital 
costs over longer time

[[Page 86872]]

periods. We have selected the change of status dates, both as proposed 
and as finalized, considering technical factors, such as time required 
for research and development, time required for testing to meet 
industry and regulatory standards, time to adjust their manufacturing 
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes, and 
supply of alternatives.
    Comment: NAFEM commented that if the proposed changes are 
finalized, the rule will limit manufacturer productivity, threaten less 
profitable but important niche product lines that currently meet 
marketplace needs, and shift significant costs to end users of 
commercial refrigeration equipment. NAFEM further commented that costs 
and impacts for niche product lines, safety concerns, and evaluation, 
research, redesign, testing, implementation and training should be 
included in EPA's revised analyses. Structural Composites and Compsys 
comments that costs will dramatically increase if alternatives fail and 
several rounds of trials are required.
    Response: Although EPA did not consider the costs of transitioning 
to other alternatives in making the listing decisions in this 
rulemaking, for informational purposes, we did prepare a cost analysis 
and a small business impacts analysis for this rule for businesses that 
are directly regulated. EPA recognizes that transitioning to other 
alternatives is likely to require capital costs and investments in 
research, updated equipment, and their related financial impacts. 
However, EPA's cost analysis did not evaluate the share of costs likely 
to be borne by consumers, since it is not clear what proportion of cost 
impacts may be passed on to consumers, and further, such economic 
analyses typically look at costs to the regulated community rather than 
indirect impacts on consumers. NAFEM did not provide specific cost or 
cost impact information for niche users or specific information for 
profit losses that would have allowed us to analyze the impacts for 
niche product lines. In the cases where commenters provided specific, 
detailed cost information, we used that information to revise the cost 
assumptions in our updated cost analysis for this final rule. For 
additional information on economic analysis conducted for this rule, 
see the supporting document ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to 
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and 
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and 
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening Analysis
    Comment: EPA received comments indicating that small businesses 
bear a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden. NAFEM and 
Structural Composites and Compsys stated that the proposed rule was 
overly burdensome to small businesses. NAFEM comments that if this rule 
is finalized as proposed, the available supply of equipment models will 
decrease because manufacturers will not be able to sell existing 
supply, will not have a portfolio of products ready to sell that comply 
with the new rule, and will have to pause the current development 
process for new projects already in the planning stage, further 
burdening small businesses. AHAM commented that the EPA's estimates for 
one time investments and annualized costs for facility conversion were 
``grossly'' understated and EPA does not capture the ``full financial 
impact to manufacturers.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We prepared a 
preliminary small business screening analysis during the development of 
the proposed rule. We have updated our small business screening 
analysis using the change of status decisions and dates in the final 
rule and using detailed cost information provided by commenters.\222\ 
In the analyses, EPA recognized that some small businesses may 
experience significant costs, but concluded that the number of small 
businesses that would experience significant costs was not substantial. 
A Small Business Advocacy Panel is convened when a proposed rulemaking 
is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, or ``SISNOSE.'' EPA's preliminary and final screening 
analyses concluded that this rulemaking would not pose a SISNOSE: 
Accordingly, we did not convene a Small Business Advocacy Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives 
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 
Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More broadly, for purposes of E.O. 12866, we performed an analysis 
of the costs of the proposed rule on all-sized businesses and estimated 
the total annualized upfront compliance costs to range from $59.2-$71.3 
million, using a 7% discount rate, and $58.8-$70.6 million, using a 3% 
discount rate.\223\ Total annualized compliance costs across affected 
small businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8 [hyphen]$14.4 
million at a 7% discount rate, or $11.5[hyphen]$14.0 million at a 3% 
discount rate.\224\ We updated both analyses based upon the regulatory 
options and change of status dates in the final rule. The changes in 
the final rule--especially with respect to compliance dates--do not 
change the cost impacts on businesses. The commenters did not point to 
any specific aspects of that analysis that they believe are deficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the 
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and 
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. ICF International. 
September, 2016.
    \224\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High[hyphen]GWP
    Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, 
and Fire Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the screening analysis for purposes of determining whether 
there was a SISNOSE and the analysis for purposes of E.O. 12866 were 
conducted based on the best market and cost information available to 
the Agency.
    EPA also disagrees with the comment regarding the inability to sell 
existing supply as the status changes in the rule relate to new 
manufacturing and do not limit the sale of existing supply.
    Comment: Arkema commented that EPA underestimated the costs of the 
NPRM. Arkema believes EPA's cost estimates are unduly optimistic given 
all that must be done to redesign equipment. Arkema further commented 
on three areas of economic analysis that they state need to be 
addressed. First, Arkema stated that EPA does not include the ``wasted 
costs'' incurred by those manufacturers that have actually changed 
designs of their equipment to meet DOE standards, based on the 
continued availability of existing SNAP substitutes, but that now may 
need to change their designs again. Second, Arkema suggested that EPA 
should account for ``economic effects'' on U.S. plants that produce 
HFC-134a and the other HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency 
proposed to change. Third, Arkema suggested that the economic analyses 
should disclose how EPA expects prices and availability to change once 
it eliminates competing products, including stimulation of short-term 
demand for the HFCs and HFC blends whose listing the Agency proposed to 
change, longer term increases in prices for the HFCs and HFC blends, 
and increased demand for next-generation fluorinated products.

[[Page 86873]]

    Response: See response above and see also section VII.B.1 of the 
preamble to the July 2015 rule.
    Comment: Structural Composites and Compsys generally agreed with 
the economic impact of transitioning to an alternative, as outlined in 
EPA's ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to 
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and 
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
    Response: EPA appreciates this comment.
    Comment: AHAM noted the anticipated development costs fluctuate 
depending on the transition deadline. According to data collected by 
AHAM, EPA's proposed date of 2021 for new household refrigerants has 
the highest transition cost per company, while the 2024 deadline 
proposed by industry allows companies adequate time to structure costs 
over multiple years at nearly half the cost.
    Response: The cost of transition to other alternatives is not a 
consideration under the SNAP review criteria. See sections VI and VII.C 
for additional information on considerations of cost under the SNAP 
program. With regard to AHAM's analysis, it is not clear what years 
AHAM considered. For example, we could not determine if AHAM considered 
dates earlier than 2021 or limited their evaluation to 2021 and later 
dates.

D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes

1. General Comments
    Comment: UTC commented that EPA should avoid utilizing specific GWP 
limits in this or subsequent rulemakings.
    Response: EPA agrees with this commenter, and notes that no SNAP 
action has established a maximum GWP above which a substitute would be 
unacceptable. EPA recognizes that different end-uses have different 
technical demands and available alternatives, and so has always sought 
to determine which substitutes are safer overall in the intersection of 
each substitute and end-use.
    Comment: NRDC and EIA expressed their support for the rule, 
encouraged similar actions be taken in other sectors and end-uses, and 
stated that promotion of alternatives with lower GWPs than those that 
are still acceptable is necessary.
    Response: We appreciate the support of these commenters and their 
concurrence in the importance of the benefits of this rule. Regarding 
requests for finding unacceptable substitutes with GWPs in the range of 
600 to 1,400, the agency must consider the availability of other 
alternatives that are safer overall in each end use. We encourage the 
development of such alternatives, and as technologies continue to 
evolve, the agency intends to continue to evaluate present and new 
alternatives.
    Comment: Hudson encouraged EPA not to approve substitutes for 
retrofit purposes unless they have a lower GWP and are more energy 
efficient than the current chemical in that equipment.
    Response: This action does not approve substitutes for retrofit 
purposes.
2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
    Comment: AHAM, FPA, Johnson Controls, NEDA/CAP, Flexible Packaging 
Association, and Sub Zero Group stated that the environmental benefits 
of this action are small when compared with the total of the United 
States' GHG emissions or in comparison with the benefits of other EPA 
rules.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the notion that the environmental 
benefits of this rule are ``miniscule,'' as one commenter said, or that 
the benefits to human health and the environment are too small to make 
this action worthwhile. While the Agency agrees that some other 
sectors, such as electricity generation, currently emit more GHGs than 
the sectors affected by this rule, the estimated benefits of this rule 
are significant. To place the benefits in perspective, the 10-11 
MMTCO2eq of prevented emissions in 2030 are equivalent to the total 
energy use of over one million homes, or equivalent to taking well over 
two million cars off the road.\225\ Further, the problem of climate 
change is of the type that is the result of many small acts of 
pollution rather than one giant spill or other polluting event. It is 
the sum of all the small releases of gases that leads to the problem, 
and to claim that individual sources of emissions should not be reduced 
because their contributions, taken alone, are not as large as those of 
others would make control of the problem impossible. In fact, due to 
the high GWPs of many of the gases affected by this rule, reducing 
emission of HFCs is widely considered low-hanging fruit in terms of the 
efficiency of approaches to reduce GHG emissions.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Accessible 
at www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator.
    \226\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate 
and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This 
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: UTC commented that the environmental analysis underlying 
this rule is flawed, and that benefits should be calculated based on a 
projection of state-by-state code adoption.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter. In our consultation 
with stakeholders, we have frequently heard that patchworks of local 
regulations often make matters more difficult for businesses. This 
action will change the status of certain substitutes in certain end-
uses uniformly across the country. Hence our approach of calculating 
benefits assuming similar adoption rates nationally is appropriate. It 
is true that some localities may implement regulations that nudge or 
force businesses to transition faster than the transition dates in this 
rule, just as some businesses may make the decision to transition more 
quickly, but that simply means that the cumulative benefits estimated 
are conservative in this respect. Benefits in given years after the 
transition dates would not be affected by such early transitions.
    Comment: NAFEM requested that EPA conduct a study to determine the 
effect on the environment of this action using refrigerant escape 
estimates rather than overall use of refrigerants in various end-uses.
    Response: EPA does consider the rates at which substitutes leak or 
are otherwise emitted in its estimation of environmental benefits. The 
Agency's Vintaging Model accounts for emissions from use, servicing, 
and disposal of equipment and materials as each year's worth, or 
``vintage,'' of that equipment goes through its life cycle. This model, 
and the estimates of leak rates within it, is peer-reviewed and 
regularly updated.
3. Energy Efficiency
    Comment: Hudson and UTC both claim that the energy efficiency 
implications of changes in refrigerant should be considered, and Hudson 
specifically suggests that finding alternatives acceptable for retrofit 
uses can lead to losses in efficiency.
    Response: The SNAP regulations for review of substitutes include 
both a list of ``information required to be submitted'' (section 
82.178) and ``criteria for review'' of SNAP submissions (section 
82.180). The list of required information includes global warming 
impacts and mentions changes in energy efficiency as an example of 
indirect contributions to global warming. The criteria for review do 
not mention energy efficiency. While EPA uses all information submitted 
to inform its general understanding of the substitute, the end-use, and 
the sector, the Agency does not use all the

[[Page 86874]]

information as part of its comparative assessment to support listing 
decisions. As EPA previously stated, ``[w]e note that we do not have a 
practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in the 
overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as 
technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in 
determining whether alternatives are `available' '' (80 FR 42921; July 
20, 2015).
    The Agency agrees with the commenters that energy efficiency can 
have significant impacts on the GHG emissions. However, we disagree 
that this action will have unintended detrimental effects on energy 
efficiency. As described in the July 2015 rule (80 FR 42902), the 
energy efficiency actually achieved will depend on both the refrigerant 
used and the design and settings of the equipment. It is impractical 
for EPA to evaluate all possible equipment design and refrigerant 
combinations. As part of its consideration of whether available 
alternatives exist in particular end-uses, SNAP considers as part of 
its evaluation whether use of potential alternatives is feasible. For 
example, if use of a particular alternative made it impossible for end 
users to comply with DOE energy conservation standards, that chemical 
would not be considered a truly available substitute, and this would be 
considered in decisions on the status of other alternatives in that 
end-use. In fact, many substitutes that remain acceptable can lead to 
better energy efficiency in that end-use than the alternatives that are 
having their status changed in this rule.
    Comment: For new cold storage warehouses, Daikin recommended that 
R-410A remain acceptable in direct expansion systems ``in order to 
maintain the energy efficiency and safety of Cold Storage Warehouses.'' 
They provided an explanation of why R-410A is more energy efficient 
than R-404A. Arguing that we should not change the status of R-407A and 
R-407B, and should find R-448A and R-449A acceptable, for both cold 
storage warehouses and for refrigerated food processing and dispensing 
equipment, AHRI stated without identifying any specific substitutes 
that ``[s]ome of the SNAP listed low-GWP refrigerants in this 
application will result in less efficient products.''
    Response: See responses above. For new cold storage warehouses, we 
noted that some equipment could be subject to DOE energy conservation 
standards, and have considered this in determining a reasonable yet 
expeditious change of status date. For new refrigerated food processing 
and dispensing equipment, as an equipment manufacturer indicated, there 
are not applicable DOE energy conservation standards.

E. Interactions With Other Rules

    Comment: CPI and BASF stated that there needs to be an alignment 
between EPA and the Canadian regulatory framework for HFC emissions. 
Both organizations encouraged EPA to work with Environment and Climate 
Change Canada (ECCC) to align regulatory controls under development to 
limit HFC emissions from foam products that impact similar end-uses. 
The commenters stated that a consistent approach would reduce confusion 
in the marketplace and facilitate compliance with any use restrictions.
    Response: The regulatory frameworks and decisions of the U.S. and 
other countries may vary due to differences in the statutes on which 
the regulations are based as well as public input and other factors. 
While EPA agrees that certain countries, such as Canada, look to the 
work already done in the United States and some similarities may 
result, each country's regulations are based on its domestic statutes 
and regulatory processes. ECCC proposals to date have considered EPA's 
rules,\227\ and EPA appreciates the value of consistency where 
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ See the ECCC's permitting and reporting requirements for 
HFCs, which take effect in February 2017. Canada Gazette, June 2016. 
Ozone-depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives Regulations. 
Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-29/html/sor-dors137-eng.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Suggestions or Requests

    Comment: Zero Zone recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to 
the list of acceptable alternatives for stand-alone equipment. NAFEM 
commented that there are no acceptable alternatives for R-404A, other 
than propane, and recommended that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to the 
list of acceptable alternatives for medium temperature stand-alone 
equipment. NAFEM stated that ``R-448A and 449A have lower GWPs and 
deliver fewer emissions than 404A, and in most cases, these 
refrigerants can be used as a drop in replacement for 404A.'' NAFEM 
commented that the same public health arguments that the EPA cited in 
deeming R-450A and similar refrigerants as acceptable for medium 
temperature stand-alone (retail food refrigeration) equipment should 
also apply to R-448A and R-449A. NAFEM noted that EPA performed 
assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of R-450A in 
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118. NAFEM indicated that it would be 
burdensome for manufacturers using R-404A for medium temperature 
applications to transition to R-450A, for example, given that R-450A 
``was designed to replace R-134A and has significantly different 
performance characteristics when compared to R-404A.'' NAFEM stated 
that R-450A is a low pressure gas compared to the R-404A, which is a 
medium-pressure gas, and cited technical challenges with transitioning 
to R-450A would require redesign of current systems and regulatory 
testing. These factors, NAFEM stated, would reduce productivity of the 
equipment, increase manufacturing costs, and threaten market supply of 
medium temperature equipment. Conversely, NAFEM believe the use of R-
448A and R-449A would only require valve adjustments in current system 
design, reduce GWP by \2/3\, and would require about 10 percent effort 
for manufacturers to implement when compared to R-450A. In support of 
their argument for the acceptable listing of R-448A and R-449A for 
medium temperature equipment, NAFEM also stated that stand-alone 
equipment has lower leak rates and refrigerant charge than remote 
systems.
    Response: These comments go beyond the scope of the current 
rulemaking as they concern end-uses and/or substitutes not addressed in 
this action. EPA appreciates receiving this information and will 
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions.
    Comment: While CARB supported EPA's efforts to change the status of 
certain high-GWP alternatives for use in several end-uses, the agency 
encouraged EPA to list additional high-GWP refrigerants as unacceptable 
in the refrigeration and AC sector and work with refrigerant safety 
standards committees, such as ASHRAE and UL, to accelerate the 
transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. CARB also stated that the 
proposed rule is a valuable early action item that will assist in 
developing additional HFC reduction measures in their SLCP Reduction 
Strategy that they plan to finalize in the fall of 2016.
    Response: EPA appreciates receiving this information and will 
consider the comments as it evaluates possible future actions. EPA is 
committed to its engagement with stakeholders in the refrigerants 
industry, including ASHRAE and UL. For example, EPA staff are currently 
members of ASHRAE, and participate in relevant subcommittees, such as 
ASHRAE Standing Standard Project Committees 15 and 15.2, some of the 
leading safety

[[Page 86875]]

standards for refrigerants in the United States, and EPA staff 
regularly attend industry conferences intended for the refrigerants 
industry.
    Comment: The Alliance requested that EPA disclose the timeline for 
finalizing the Agency's proposal to amend the section 608 refrigerant 
management regulations (80 FR 69458; November 9, 2015). The Alliance 
indicated that its members are supportive of the proposal, but are 
concerned that the Agency has not finalized the rule, given that the 
public comment period closed on December 9, 2015. They also noted that 
they submitted a petition on January 31, 2015, requesting the proposed 
rule. The Alliance believe that ``promoting effective refrigerant 
management practices, including recovery, reclamation and reuse, is an 
important immediate element of reducing the GHG footprint associated 
with the use of HFCs and will allow production to be focused primarily 
for use in new equipment.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the Alliance that the 608 rule will 
strengthen refrigerant management practices and reduce emissions of ODS 
and gases with high GWPs. For information on the final 608 rule, see 
the docket for the rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
    Comment: HSIA encouraged EPA to postpone the publication of the 
rule until relevant cases still pending, which challenged the July 2015 
rule, have been settled.
    Response: EPA disagrees. We are finalizing this rule in a timely 
fashion in response to public comments to provide information to the 
regulated community, some of whom have requested expedited 
finalization.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. It raises 
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket. EPA prepared analyses of the potential costs 
and benefits associated with this action. These are available in docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663 under the titles, ``Climate Benefits of the SNAP 
Program Status Change Rule'' and ``Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes 
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration 
and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0226. This rule contains no new requirements for 
reporting or recordkeeping.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, EPA evaluated small businesses as defined by the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The 
Agency has determined that about 90 small businesses could be subject 
to the rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent of the small businesses 
subject to this rulemaking would be expected to experience compliance 
costs of less than one percent of annual sales revenue. Details of this 
analysis are presented in the document entitled, ``Economic Impact 
Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of 
High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Motor 
Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \228\ EPA 
evaluated the potential costs to small businesses associated with the 
rule. EPA estimates that the total annualized compliance costs for all 
small businesses would be approximately $11.8 to $14.4 million at a 
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5 to $14.0 million at a three 
percent discount rate.\229\ This action allows equipment manufacturers 
the additional options of using propane, HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP in the 
specified end-uses but does not mandate such use. Because these 
substitutes are not yet being used in the United States for the end-
uses (with the exception of limited test-marketing), no change in 
business practice would be required to meet the use conditions, 
resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of this rule. 
Provisions that allow venting of HC refrigerants in the uses of propane 
addressed by this rule would reduce regulatory burden. We have 
therefore concluded that this action would relieve regulatory burden 
for all small entities that choose to use propane as a refrigerant in 
the end-uses in this listing. The use conditions of this rule apply to 
manufacturers of commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low 
temperature refrigeration equipment that choose to use propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for 
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives 
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire 
Suppression. September, 2016.
    \229\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements of this rule with respect to HFCs would impact 
small businesses that manufacture food processing and dispensing 
equipment, household refrigerators and freezers, cold storage 
refrigeration systems, and polyurethane foams; operators of cold 
storage refrigeration systems, including refrigerated warehouses, 
wholesalers, and food manufacturers; and manufacture and use cold 
storage warehouses, and small businesses that import products 
containing closed cell phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and 
polystyrene foams manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam blowing agents. 
The prohibition of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent is not 
anticipated to impact small businesses because this substance is not 
expected to be used currently as a blowing agent. This rule's 
provisions do not create enforceable requirements for refrigeration and 
AC technicians, but they would indirectly affect technicians servicing 
motor vehicle AC systems, certain types of retail food refrigeration 
equipment, cold storage warehouses, and commercial AC equipment where 
the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC equipment owner, 
purchases servicing equipment for different refrigerants. EPA expects 
these indirect impacts on technicians are minimal, because the 
transitions to different refrigerants required by this rule are already 
occurring due to corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g., 
Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and because 
many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for these 
refrigeration or AC equipment types. Further, most acceptable HFC 
refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using equipment that 
service technicians already own. In some uses, there is no significant 
impact of the rule because the substitutes prohibited are not widely 
used (e.g., use of perfluorocarbons for fire suppression,

[[Page 86876]]

use of methylene chloride as a foam blowing agent in various types of 
foam). A significant portion of the businesses regulated under this 
rule are not small businesses (e.g., commercial AC manufacturers). We 
have therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a significant number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPA is 
aware that the California Air Resources Board has proposed regulation 
of a number of the substitutes and end-uses in this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This rule restricts the use of certain substitutes that have greater 
overall risks for human health and the environment, primarily due to 
their high GWP. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate 
benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future 
generations. The risk screens are in the docket for this 
rulemaking.230 231 232 233 234
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \231\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290) 
and Ethane (R-170).
    \232\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \233\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
    \234\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. For the end-uses that are related to 
energy effects such as refrigeration and AC, a number of alternatives 
are available to replace those refrigerants that are listed as 
unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives are as energy 
efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes being listed 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 (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. EPA is using standards 
from UL in the use conditions for propane and standards from SAE for 
HFO-1234yf. Additionally, EPA is incorporating by reference a standard 
from SAE that EPA already requires in a use condition for HFC-152a in 
MVAC. These use conditions will ensure that these new substitutes for 
very low temperature refrigeration equipment, commercial ice machines, 
and water coolers, do not present significantly greater risk to human 
health or the environment than other alternatives.
    EPA is incorporating by reference portions of current editions of 
the UL Standard 399, ``Standard for Drinking-Water Coolers''; UL 
Standard 471, ``Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers''; 
and UL Standard 563, ``Standard for Ice Makers'', which includes 
requirements for the safe use of refrigerants. Specifically, these 
standards are:
    1. Supplement SB to UL Standard 399: Requirements for Drinking 
Water Coolers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating 
System (7th Edition, August 22, 2008). This document establishes 
requirements for self-contained drinking water coolers, including those 
supplying cold and/or hot water and those employing flammable 
refrigerants. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399, and may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 
Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; 
Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial 
+1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or 
www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 399 is $798 for an electronic copy 
and $998 for hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the 
Standards Certification Customer Library (SCCL) that allows unlimited 
access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining 
this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment 
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling, 
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably 
available.
    2. Supplement SB to UL Standard 471: Requirements for Refrigerators 
and Freezers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating 
System (10th Edition, November 24, 2010). This document establishes 
requirements for commercial refrigerators and freezers that employ a 
refrigerant that has been identified as having flammable 
characteristics. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471&edition=10&doctype=ulstd, and may 
be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 
60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the 
U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-352-2168); Internet 
address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of 
UL 471 is $716 for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also 
offers a subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access 
to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this 
standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment 
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling, 
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
the UL

[[Page 86877]]

standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
    3. Supplement SA to UL Standard 563: Requirements for Ice Makers 
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigeration System (8th 
Edition, July 31, 2009). This document establishes requirements for 
automatic ice makers, including unitary and remote ice makers. The 
standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563&edition=8&doctype=ulstd, and may be purchased by mail at: COMM 
2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other 
countries dial +1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 563 is $716 
for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also offers a 
subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access to their 
standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is 
not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers and 
purchase is not required for those selling, installing and servicing 
the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standard being 
incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
    EPA is also incorporating by reference the list of refrigerants 
that ASHRAE designates as flammability Class 3 according to ASHRAE 
Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety Classification of 
Refrigerants, in the unacceptability listing for certain highly 
flammable refrigerants for use in existing residential and light 
commercial split AC systems. This standard is available at https://
www.ashrae.org/resources--publications/bookstore/standards-15--34 and 
may be purchased by mail at: 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 
48108; by telephone: 1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada; Internet 
address: http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=. The cost of ASHRAE Standard 
34-2013 is $107 for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining 
this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment 
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling, 
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that 
the ASHRAE standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably 
available.
    In addition, EPA is using standards from SAE in the use conditions 
for HFO-1234yf. These standards are:
    1. SAE J639: Safety Standards for Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor 
Compression Systems (revised December 19, 2011). This document 
establishes safety standards for HFO-1234yf MVAC systems that include 
unique fittings; a warning label indicating the refrigerant's identity 
and that it is a flammable refrigerant; and requirements for 
engineering design strategies that include a high-pressure compressor 
cutoff switch and pressure relief devices. This standard is available 
at http://standards.sae.org/j639_201112/.
    2. SAE J1739 (adopted 2009): Potential Failure Mode and Effects 
Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Effects 
Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and 
Effects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA) (revised January 1, 
2009). This standard describes potential FMEA in design and potential 
FMEA in manufacturing and assembly processes. It requires manufacturers 
of MVAC systems and vehicles to conduct a FMEA and assists users in the 
identification and mitigation of risk by providing appropriate terms, 
requirements, ranking charts, and worksheets. This standard is 
available at http://standards.sae.org/j1739_200901/.
    3. SAE J2844 (Revised October 2011): R-1234yf (HFO-1234yf) New 
Refrigerant Purity and Container Requirements For Use in Mobile Air-
Conditioning Systems (revised October 2011). This standard sets purity 
standards and describes container requirements, including fittings for 
refrigerant cylinders. For connections with refrigerant containers for 
use in professional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE 
J2844 (revised October 2011). This standard is available at http://standards.sae.org/j2844_201110/.
    These standards may be purchased by mail at: SAE Customer Service, 
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001; by telephone: 1-877-
606-7323 in the United States or 724-776-4970 outside the United States 
or in Canada. The cost of SAE J639, SAE J1739, and SAE 2844 is $74 each 
for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining these standards is 
not a significant financial burden for manufacturers of MVAC systems 
and purchase is not required for those selling, installing and 
servicing the systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that the use of SAE 
J639, SAE J1739, and SAE J2844 are reasonably available.
    In addition, in today's rule, we are incorporating by reference a 
standard that EPA already requires in a use condition for HFC-152a in 
MVAC:
    4. SAE J2773: Standard for Refrigerant Risk Analysis for Mobile Air 
Conditioning Systems (revised February 4, 2011). This standard 
describes methods to understand the risks associated with MVAC systems 
in all aspects of a vehicle's lifecycle including design, production, 
assembly, operation and end of life. This standard is available at 
http://standards.sae.org/j2773_201102/ and may be purchased by mail at: 
SAE Customer Service, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-
0001; by telephone: 1-877-606-7323 in the United States or 724-776-4970 
outside the United States or in Canada. The cost of SAE J2773 is $74 
for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining this standard is 
not a significant financial burden for manufacturers of MVAC systems 
and purchase is not required for those selling, installing and 
servicing the systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that the use of SAE 
J2773 is reasonably available.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action 
will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous 
populations. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
the comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as 
risk screens for the substitutes that are listed as acceptable, subject 
to use conditions, or are newly listed as 
unacceptable.235 236 237 238 239 The risk screens are in the 
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \236\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290) 
and Ethane (R-170).
    \237\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \238\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
    \239\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the

[[Page 86878]]

Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
IX. References
Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene acute toxicity for R-443A 
risk screen. Prepared for EPA. July 6, 2016.
A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to Incompleteness Letter from 
A.S. Trust & Holdings to EPA--Sent March 7, 2014
AHRI, 2012. ``Test Report #1: System Drop-in Test of R-410A 
Alternative Fluid (ARM-32a, ARM-70a, DR-5, HPR1D, L-41a, L-41b, and 
R-32) in a 5-RT Air Cooled Water Chiller (Cooling Mode).'' November 
26, 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/AREP_Final_Reports/AHRI%20Low-GWP%20AREP-Rpt-001.pdf.
AHRI, 2014. Guideline N-2014 for Assignment of Refrigerant Container 
Colors. This document is accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_2014.pdf.
AHRI, 2016. ``AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund Flammable 
Refrigerant Research.'' June 2, 2016. This document is accessible at 
http://www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases.aspx?A=1170.
AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning 
and Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 2013. This 
document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf.
Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene.
Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of 
Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) 
Standard 2-2008 (Addendum B)--American National Standard for 
Equipment, Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia 
Mechanical Refrigerating Systems
ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation and Safety 
Classification of Refrigerants.
ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety Standard for 
Refrigeration Systems.
ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc. 
Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. Wiedmer, and R.P. 
Schwarzenbach: Concentrations and mass fluxes of chloroacetic acids 
and trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in Switzerland. 
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2675-2683, 2000.
Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water Coolers. 
October, 2015.
Carrier, 2016. ``Carrier China Showcases latest Innovations at China 
Refrigeration Expo.'' April 7, 2016. This document is accessible at 
http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-article/carrier_china_showcases_latest_innovations_at_china_refrigeration_expo.aspx.
Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change 
Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, comment submitted by 
Clayton Corporation. October 20, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198-0133.
Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton Corporation Meeting with EPA 
Stratospheric Protection Division, December 8, 2015.
Climaveneta, 2015. ``Against Global Warming with the NEW TECS2 HFO 
Chillers.'' January 12, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press-Releases/112.html.
Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd chiller, June 30, 2014. 
This document is accessible at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd-chiller/.
Cooling Post, 2015. ``Blue Box offers R1234ze chiller option.'' 
April 29, 2015. This document is accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/blue-box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/.
Cooling Post, 2015. ``Chemours to build HFO-1336mzz plant,'' 
November 17, 2015. This document is accessible online at: http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/chemours-to-build-hfo-1336mzz-plant/.
DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. Energy Efficiency 
Standards for Federal Buildings. Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/federal-building-standards. Last 
updated February 13, 2014.
Doniger and Yurek, 2016. Doniger, David (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek 
(AHRI), February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter Regarding Chiller Actions 
Under SNAP. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0013.
DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of 
Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program. Submitted by Michael Parr and Mack 
McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0198-0077.
Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in Domestic Refrigeration. 
Accessible at: http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm.
Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ``Quantum: Series and features of the 
energy-efficient chiller series.'' This document is accessible at 
https://www.engie-refrigeration.de/export/sites/cofelyrefrigeration/content/documents/ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_Quantum_Folder.pdf.
EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status under the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain high-GWP 
chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or 
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the 
Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is accessible at: 
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07-0601. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036.
EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, 
Inc. June, 2013. This document is accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/mailfov_envirosafe_06112013.pdf.
EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking for 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- 
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. EPA-420-D-15-900. June 
2015. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d15900.pdf.
EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule. 
March, 2016.
EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the 
Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications 
for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives 
Policy Program. September, 2016.
EPA, 2016c. A ``Cool'' Way to Combat Climate Change under the 
Montreal Protocol. July 20, 2016. Available online at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/07/a-cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/.
Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-290 in Very 
Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG.
FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance 
Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This document is accessible 
at: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf.
FAA, 2016. FAA Stratification and Localization of Halon 1211 
Discharged in Occupied Aircraft Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC-14/50). 
This document is accessible at: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-14-50.pdf.
Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change Rule 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, submitted by Dr. Thomas 
Fishback, Vice President, Research and Development, Fomo Products, 
Inc. October 16, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0139.
Fomo, 2015. ``The Use of Solstice[supreg] Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) in 
Low-Pressure Spray Polyurethane Foam Applications,'' Cline, Mojee 
and Bogdan, Mary, October, 2015. Polyurethane Industry Conference 
2015.
FTOC, 2011. 2010 Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical 
Options

[[Page 86879]]

Committee. This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This document is accessible at 
http://www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_broschure.pdf.
Gradient, 2013. Additional Risk Assessment of Alternative 
Refrigerant R-1234yf. Prepared by Gradient for SAE International 
Cooperative Research Program 1234-4. July 24, 2013. The Executive 
Summary of this document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/executivesummary.pdf.
Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of 
Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 
Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 
(Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0198). October 20, 2014. Docket number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170.
Honeywell, 2016. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of 
Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain 
Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 
(Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0663-0086.
Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Chipperfield, S. A. 
Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived 
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric 
ozone. Nature Geoscience, February 16, 2015. This document is 
accessible online at http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363.
HVACNews, 2016. ``Opteon Refrigerants Increasingly Selected by 
Leading Global OEMs.'' January 25, 2016. http://hvacnews.com/2016/01/25/opteon-refrigerants-increasingly-selected-by-leading-global-oems/.
ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation: 
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van 
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available online at: 
http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiency-technology.
ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant Charge Size to Passenger 
Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum Prepared 
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008.
ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts 
of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 
Communities and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle 
Air Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. This document is 
accessible at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0664-0038.
ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions.
ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the Vintaging Model that Impacted 
HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimates.
ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-
1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities, 
Soil and Plants, and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected maximum 
TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations.
ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon 
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential 
and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: 
Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for HCFC-22 in Residential 
and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps; Substitute: R-
441A.
ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor Vehicle Air 
Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, 
and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015.
ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing 
Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air 
Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory 
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. 
September, 2016.
ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290) 
and Ethane (R-170).
ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program: 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. 
Substitute: R-443A.
ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. 
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes 
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270)
ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression, Comfort 
Cooling, Cold Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing 
Equipment, and Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 
States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
February, 2016.
ICF, 2016i. Technical Support Document for Acceptability Listing of 
HFO-1234yf for Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in Limited Heavy-Duty 
Applications.
ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Fire 
Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on 
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications. 
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Fire 
Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on 
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. 
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the Potential Impact 
of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. 
September, 2016.
ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers Substitute: HFO-
1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) 
(OpteonTM XP30).
INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second 
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is 
accessible online at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, 
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. 
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., 
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and 
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 
This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and 
the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and 
Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New York. This document is 
accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
JARN, 2015a. First Carrier AquaForce Chillers using HFO-1234ze, July 
30, 2015. This document is accessible at: http://www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=35619.
JARN, 2015b. Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled Chiller with Climate-
friendly Refrigerant

[[Page 86880]]

DR-55, September 21, 2015. This document is accessible at: 
www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=36282.
Johnson Controls, 2016. ``Johnson Controls Advances Environmental 
Sustainability with Chiller Platforms Compatible with Low GWP 
Refrigerants.'' January 20, 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced-environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants.
Kazil et al., 2014. Deposition and rainwater concentrations of 
trifluoroacetic acid in the United States from the use of HFO-
1234yf. JGR-Atmospheres, 2014.
Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts in North America from 
degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a 
potential greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental Science & 
Technology 2009. The document is accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-
1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/links/
00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf.
Kontomaris et. al., 2010. ``A Non-Flammable, Reduced GWP, HFC-134a 
Replacement in Centrifugal Chillers: DR-11.'' This document is 
accessible at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2021&context=iracc.
Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013. EPA SNAP 
Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines, 
Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
Manitowoc, 2016. ``Icecore Remote Refrigeration Units.'' This 
document is accessible at http://www.manitowocbeverage.com/asset/?id=bkbkf&regions=us&prefLang=en.
McDonald's 2004. ``Cool: The world's first HFC-free McDonald's 
restaurant.'' This document is accessible at http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/4256-e-mcdonalds.pdf.
MHI, 2015. ``MHI Develops `ETI-Z Series' of Next-generation 
Centrifugal Chiller--Adopt New Non-ozone-depleting Refrigeration to 
Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions.'' June 10, 2015. This document is 
accessible at www.mhi-global.com/news/story/1506101900.html.
Mitsubishi, 2012. ``Deployment to New Series of `eco Turbo chiller 
ETI series.''' This document is accessible at http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/491/491058.pdf.
Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and 
Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is accessible 
at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs under Clean 
Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted 
October 6, 2015.
ORNL, 2015. ORNL's JUMP Challenge: JUMP in to Advance Tech 
Innovation! Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. November 17, 2015.
Pandian et al., 1998. ``Correcting Errors in the Nationwide Data 
Base of Residential Air Exchange Rates.'' Journal of Exposure 
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577-585, 
1998.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone 
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and 
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos. 
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate constant, IR 
absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and global warming 
potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J. Geophys. Res., 
117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.
RAC, 2012. ``Klima-Therm discusses world's first HFO chiller for 
Waitrose.'' January 10, 2012. This document is accessible online at 
http://www.racplus.com/features/klima-therm-discusses-worlds-first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/8624689.article.
RAC, 2016. ``Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze refrigerants for global 
chiller range.'' February 26, 2016. This document is accessible at 
http://www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze-refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773.
Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. 
Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. Solomon. 1994. Do hydrofluorocarbons 
destroy stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71-75. Available online at 
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-552/011-552.html.
RC Group, 2016. ``Unico Turbo Air Cooled Liquid Chiller.'' This 
document is accessible at http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/Prodotti/?idP=1563.
RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and 
Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This document is accessible 
at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
SAE, 2013. SAE International Cooperative Research Project CRP1234-4 
on R-1234yf Safety, Finishes Work and Presents Conclusions. This 
document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=2146.

Sleasman, K. and Biggs, M., 2015. Lessons learned from the Federal 
Partners Workgroup on Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF), presented at 
the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry Technical Conference, 
October, 2015.
SMARDT, 2016. ``Revolutionary Energy Savings for the Built 
Environment'', ``Trendsetting Technologies for Centrifugal 
Chillers.'' These documents are available at http://climatecontrolme.com/2013/12/trendsetting-technologies-for-centrifugal-chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE%20ENGLISH%20JAN%202016.pdf.
Star Refrigeration, 2012. ``Star's Three-Way Development Test for R-
1234ze(E).'' July 2012. This document is accessible at http://www.star-ref.co.uk/star/images/stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%2082%20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf.
TEAP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, 
Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information 
on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. This document is accessible 
at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce%20XXIV-7-September2013.pdf.
TEAP, 2015. 2014 Assessment Report of the Technology and Economic 
Assessment Panel. This document is accessible at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg-36/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/TEAP_Assessment_report_2014.pdf.
TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Halons Technical Options 
Committee (Vol. 1). This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/en/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/HTOC%202014%20Assessment%20Report.pdf.
The NEWS, 2014. ``Airedale Chiller with Low-GWP HFO Refrigerant to 
Cool New John Lewis Store.'' June 9, 2014. This document is 
accessible at http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126828-airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo-refrigerant-to-cool-new-john-lewis-store.
Trane, 2016. ``Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal Chiller Line 
Expansion and Services for the United States and Canada.'' June 15, 
2016. This document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line-expansion.html.
The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan. This 
document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
The White House, 2015. Fact Sheet: Obama Administration and Private-
Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust Progress to 
Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, October 15, 2015. Accessible at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
Trane, 2015. Trane[supreg] Sintesis\TM\ Air-cooled Chillers. This 
document is accessible at: http://www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/products-systems/equipment/chillers/air-cooled/TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf.
UL, 2004. Standard 711--Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers. 
This document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=711_7.
UL, 2005. Standard 2129--Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers. 
This document

[[Page 86881]]

is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129_2.
UL, 2008. Standard 399--Standard for Drinking-Water Coolers. 7th 
edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners 
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. 
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. August 22, 2008.A summary of this 
document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7.
UL, 2009. Standard 563--Standard for Ice Makers. 8th edition. 
Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing 
a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc. July 31, 2009.A summary of this document is 
accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563.
UL, 2010. Standard 471--Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and 
Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for 
Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the 
Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 24, 
2010.A summary of this document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10.
UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the 
Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document 
is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
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.
UTC, 2016. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of Stratospheric 
Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663-0069.
Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. 
Andersen (2015). ``Future atmospheric abundances and climate 
forcings from scenarios of global and regional hydrofluorocarbon 
(HFC) emissions.'' Atmospheric Environment 123: 200-209.
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.
Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. Tyndall, O. J. Nielsen: 
Comment on ``Airborne Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its Fraction from the 
Degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China'', Environ. Sci. Technol., 
48, 9948-9948, DOI: 10.1021/es502485w, 2014.
Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report: Analyses 
of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.'' Department of 
Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 
26, 2011.
Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon Fire 
Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, H. Jin, J. Hu, 
and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its fraction from 
the degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. 
Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014.
Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, J. Hu, and J. Zhang: 
A 17-fold increase of trifluoroacetic acid in landscape waters of 
Beijing, China during the last decade, Chemosphere, 129, 110-117, 
2015.

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: September 26, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 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 F--Recycling and Emissions Reduction

0
2. Amend Sec.  82.154 by revising the introductory text to paragraph 
(a)(1) and paragraph (a)(1)(viii) to read as follows:


Sec.  82.154  Prohibitions.

    (a) * * * (1) No person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 
disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration may 
knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any 
refrigerant from such appliances. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this subpart, the following substitutes in the following end-uses 
are exempt from this prohibition and from the requirements of this 
subpart:
* * * * *
    (viii) Propane (R-290) in retail food refrigerators and freezers 
(stand-alone units only); household refrigerators, freezers, and 
combination refrigerators and freezers; self-contained room air 
conditioners for residential and light commercial air-conditioning and 
heat pumps; vending machines; and effective January 3, 2017, self-
contained commercial ice machines, very low temperature refrigeration 
equipment, and water coolers;
* * * * *

Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

0
3. In appendix B to subpart G of part 82, the table titled 
``Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' is amended by:
0
 a. Revising the fifth entry;
0
 b. Adding three entries at the end; and
0
 c. Revising the NOTE following footnote 3.
    The revisions and additions to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use 
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes

[[Page 86882]]



                               Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Application              Substitute         Decision            Conditions              Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
CFC-12 Automobile Motor         R-152a as a       Acceptable        Engineering            Additional training
 Vehicle Air Conditioning (New   substitute for    subject to use    strategies and/or      for service
 equipment only).                CFC-12.           conditions.       devices shall be       technicians
                                                                     incorporated into      recommended.
                                                                     the system such that  Manufacturers should
                                                                     foreseeable leaks      conduct and keep on
                                                                     into the passenger     file failure mode
                                                                     compartment do not     and Effect Analysis
                                                                     result in R-152a       (FMEA) on the MVAC
                                                                     concentrations of      as stated in SAE
                                                                     3.7% v/v or above in   J1739.
                                                                     any part of the free
                                                                     space1inside the
                                                                     passenger
                                                                     compartment for more
                                                                     than 15 seconds when
                                                                     the car ignition is
                                                                     on.
                                                                    Manufacturers must
                                                                     adhere to all the
                                                                     safety requirements
                                                                     listed in the
                                                                     Society of
                                                                     Automotive Engineers
                                                                     (SAE) Standard J639
                                                                     (adopted 2011),
                                                                     including unique
                                                                     fittings and a
                                                                     flammable
                                                                     refrigerant warning
                                                                     label as well as SAE
                                                                     Standard J2773
                                                                     (adopted February
                                                                     2011).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Motor vehicle air conditioning  HFO-1234yf......  Acceptable        As of January 3,       Additional training
 (newly manufactured medium-                       subject to use    2017:.                 for service
 duty passenger vehicles).                         conditions.      (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC     technicians
                                                                     systems must adhere    recommended.
                                                                     to all of the safety  HFO-1234yf is also
                                                                     requirements of SAE    known as 2,3,3,3-
                                                                     J639 (adopted 2011),   tetrafluoro-prop-1-
                                                                     including              ene (CAS. Reg. No.
                                                                     requirements for a     754-12-1).
                                                                     flammable
                                                                     refrigerant warning
                                                                     label, high-pressure
                                                                     compressor cutoff
                                                                     switch and pressure
                                                                     relief devices, and
                                                                     unique fittings. For
                                                                     connections with
                                                                     refrigerant
                                                                     containers for use
                                                                     in professional
                                                                     servicing, use
                                                                     fittings must be
                                                                     consistent with SAE
                                                                     J2844 (revised
                                                                     October 2011).
                                                                    (2) Manufacturers
                                                                     must conduct Failure
                                                                     Mode and Effect
                                                                     Analysis (FMEA) as
                                                                     provided in SAE
                                                                     J1739 (adopted
                                                                     2009). Manufacturers
                                                                     must keep the FMEA
                                                                     on file for at least
                                                                     three years from the
                                                                     date of creation.
Motor vehicle air conditioning  HFO-1234yf......  Acceptable        As of January 3,       Additional training
 (newly manufactured heavy-                        subject to use    2017:.                 for service
 duty pickup trucks).                              conditions.      (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC     technicians
                                                                     systems must adhere    recommended.
                                                                     to all of the safety  HFO-1234yf is also
                                                                     requirements of SAE    known as 2,3,3,3-
                                                                     J639 (adopted 2011),   tetrafluoro-prop-1-
                                                                     including              ene (CAS No 754-12-
                                                                     requirements for a     1).
                                                                     flammable
                                                                     refrigerant warning
                                                                     label, high-pressure
                                                                     compressor cutoff
                                                                     switch and pressure
                                                                     relief devices, and
                                                                     unique fittings. For
                                                                     connections with
                                                                     refrigerant
                                                                     containers for use
                                                                     in professional
                                                                     servicing, use
                                                                     fittings must be
                                                                     consistent with SAE
                                                                     J2844 (revised
                                                                     October 2011).
                                                                    (2) Manufacturers
                                                                     must conduct Failure
                                                                     Mode and Effect
                                                                     Analysis (FMEA) as
                                                                     provided in SAE
                                                                     J1739 (adopted
                                                                     2009). Manufacturers
                                                                     must keep the FMEA
                                                                     on file for at least
                                                                     three years from the
                                                                     date of creation.
Motor vehicle air conditioning  HFO-1234yf......  Acceptable        As of January 3,       Additional training
 (newly manufactured complete                      subject to use    2017:.                 for service
 heavy-duty vans only).                            conditions.      (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC     technicians
                                                                     systems must adhere    recommended.
                                                                     to all of the safety  HFO-1234yf is also
                                                                     requirements of SAE    known as 2,3,3,3-
                                                                     J639 (adopted 2011),   tetrafluoro-prop-1-
                                                                     including              ene (CAS No 754-12-
                                                                     requirements for a     1).
                                                                     flammable             HFO-1234yf is
                                                                     refrigerant warning    acceptable for
                                                                     label, high-pressure   complete heavy-duty
                                                                     compressor cutoff      vans. Complete heavy-
                                                                     switch and pressure    duty vans are not
                                                                     relief devices, and    altered by a
                                                                     unique fittings. For   secondary or
                                                                     connections with       tertiary
                                                                     refrigerant            manufacturer.
                                                                     containers for use
                                                                     in professional
                                                                     servicing, use
                                                                     fittings must be
                                                                     consistent with SAE
                                                                     J2844 (revised
                                                                     October 2011).
                                                                    (2) Manufacturers
                                                                     must conduct Failure
                                                                     Mode and Effect
                                                                     Analysis (FMEA) as
                                                                     provided in SAE
                                                                     J1739 (adopted
                                                                     2009). Manufacturers
                                                                     must keep the FMEA
                                                                     on file for at least
                                                                     three years from the
                                                                     date of creation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 86883]]

* * * * *

    Note 1: The Director of the Federal Register approves the 
incorporation by reference of the material under ``Conditions'' in 
the table ``REFRIGERANTS--ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS'' (5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). You may obtain a copy from SAE 
Customer Service, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 
USA; email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-877-606-7323 (U.S. 
and Canada only) or 1-724-776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada); 
Internet address: http://store.sae.org/dlabout.htm. You may inspect 
a copy at U.S. EPA's Air Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334; 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, or at the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to 
these standards, the telephone number of EPA's Air Docket is 202-
566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

* * * * *

0
4. Appendix K to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix K to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use 
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the July 22, 2002, 
Final Rule Effective August 21, 2002

                                     Foam Blowing--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                        Substitute                Decision                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacements for HCFC-141b in the      HCFC-22, HCFC-142b and   Unacceptable Closed      Alternatives exist with
 following rigid polyurethane/          blends thereof.          cell foam products and   lower or zero-ODP.
 polyisocyanurate applications:.                                 products containing
--Boardstock.........................                            closed cell foams
--Appliance..........................                            manufactured with
--Spray..............................                            these substitutes on
                                                                 or before December 1,
                                                                 2017 may be used after
                                                                 that date.
All foam end-uses....................  HCFC-124...............  Unacceptable Closed      Alternatives exist with
                                                                 cell foam products and   lower or zero-ODP.
                                                                 products containing
                                                                 closed cell foams
                                                                 manufactured with this
                                                                 substitute on or
                                                                 before December 1,
                                                                 2017 may be used after
                                                                 that date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
5. Appendix M to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix M to Subpart G--Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the 
September 30, 2004 Final Rule, Effective November 29, 2004

                                     Foam Blowing--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                        Substitute                Decision                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All foam end-uses:                     HCFC-141b..............  Unacceptable Closed      Alternatives exist with
--rigid polyurethane and                                         cell foam products and   lower or zero-ODP.
 polyisocyanurate laminated                                      products containing
 boardstock                                                      closed cell foams
--rigid polyurethane appliance                                   manufactured with this
--rigid polyurethane spray and                                   substitute on or
 commercial refrigeration, and                                   before December 1,
 sandwich panels                                                 2017 may be used after
                                                                 that date.
    --rigid polyurethane slabstock
     and other foams
    --polystyrene extruded insulation
     boardstock and billet.
    --phenolic insulation board and
     bunstock.
    --flexible polyurethane..........
    --polystyrene extruded sheet.....
    --Except for: \1\................
    --space vehicle..................
    --nuclear........................
    --defense........................
    --research and development for
     foreign customers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exemptions for specific applications are identified in the list of acceptable substitutes, which is
  available on the SNAP Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/snap/foam-blowing-agents.


0
6. Appendix O to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the table 
titled ``Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector-Total 
Flooding Substitutes-Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions'' to read as 
follows:

Appendix O to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Listed in the September 
27, 2006 Final Rule, Effective November 27, 2006






[[Page 86884]]



     Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Sector--Total Flooding Substitutes--Acceptable Subject to Use
                                                   Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                Substitute         Decision            Conditions        Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding................  Gelled            Acceptable        Use of whichever       Use of this agent
                                 Halocarbon/Dry    subject to use    hydrofluorocarbon      should be in
                                 Chemical          conditions.       gas (HFC-125, HFC-     accordance with the
                                 Suspension                          227ea, or HFC-236fa)   safety guidelines in
                                 (Envirogel)                         is employed in the     the latest edition
                                 with sodium                         formulation must be    of the NFPA 2001
                                 bicarbonate                         in accordance with     Standard for Clean
                                 additive.                           all requirements for   Agent Fire
                                                                     acceptability (i.e.,   Extinguishing
                                                                     narrowed use limits)   Systems, for
                                                                     of that HFC under      whichever
                                                                     EPA's SNAP program.    hydrofluorocarbon
                                                                                            gas is employed, and
                                                                                            the latest edition
                                                                                            of the NFPA 2010
                                                                                            standard for Aerosol
                                                                                            Extinguishing
                                                                                            Systems.
                                                                                           Sodium bicarbonate
                                                                                            release in all
                                                                                            settings should be
                                                                                            targeted so that
                                                                                            increased blood pH
                                                                                            level would not
                                                                                            adversely affect
                                                                                            exposed individuals.
                                                                                           Users should provide
                                                                                            special training,
                                                                                            including the
                                                                                            potential hazards
                                                                                            associated with the
                                                                                            use of the HFC agent
                                                                                            and sodium
                                                                                            bicarbonate, to
                                                                                            individuals required
                                                                                            to be in
                                                                                            environments
                                                                                            protected by
                                                                                            Envirogel with
                                                                                            sodium bicarbonate
                                                                                            additive
                                                                                            extinguishing
                                                                                            systems.
                                                                                           Each extinguisher
                                                                                            should be clearly
                                                                                            labeled with the
                                                                                            potential hazards
                                                                                            from use and safe
                                                                                            handling procedures.
                                                                                           See additional
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                            5.
Total flooding................  Powdered Aerosol  Acceptable        For use only in        Use of this agent
                                 E                 subject to use    normally unoccupied    should be in
                                 (FirePro[supreg   conditions.       areas.                 accordance with the
                                 ]).                                                        safety guidelines in
                                                                                            the latest edition
                                                                                            of the NFPA 2010
                                                                                            standard for Aerosol
                                                                                            Extinguishing
                                                                                            Systems.
                                                                                           For establishments
                                                                                            manufacturing the
                                                                                            agent or filling,
                                                                                            installing, or
                                                                                            servicing containers
                                                                                            or systems to be
                                                                                            used in total
                                                                                            flooding
                                                                                            applications, EPA
                                                                                            recommends the
                                                                                            following:
                                                                                           --adequate
                                                                                            ventilation should
                                                                                            be in place to
                                                                                            reduce airborne
                                                                                            exposure to
                                                                                            constituents of
                                                                                            agent;
                                                                                           --an eye wash
                                                                                            fountain and quick
                                                                                            drench facility
                                                                                            should be close to
                                                                                            the production area;
                                                                                           --training for safe
                                                                                            handling procedures
                                                                                            should be provided
                                                                                            to all employees
                                                                                            that would be likely
                                                                                            to handle containers
                                                                                            of the agent or
                                                                                            extinguishing units
                                                                                            filled with the
                                                                                            agent;
                                                                                           --workers responsible
                                                                                            for clean up should
                                                                                            allow for maximum
                                                                                            settling of all
                                                                                            particulates before
                                                                                            reentering area and
                                                                                            wear appropriate
                                                                                            protective
                                                                                            equipment; and
                                                                                           --all spills should
                                                                                            be cleaned up
                                                                                            immediately in
                                                                                            accordance with good
                                                                                            industrial hygiene
                                                                                            practices.
                                                                                           See additional
                                                                                            comments 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                            5.
Total flooding................  Phosphorous       Acceptable        For use only in        For establishments
                                 Tribromide        subject to use    aircraft engine        manufacturing the
                                 (PBr3).           conditions.       nacelles.              agent or filling,
                                                                                            installing, or
                                                                                            servicing containers
                                                                                            or systems, EPA
                                                                                            recommends the
                                                                                            following:
                                                                                           --adequate
                                                                                            ventilation should
                                                                                            be in place and/or
                                                                                            positive pressure,
                                                                                            self-contained
                                                                                            breathing apparatus
                                                                                            (SCBA) should be
                                                                                            worn;
                                                                                              --training for
                                                                                               safe handling
                                                                                               procedures should
                                                                                               be provided to
                                                                                               all employees
                                                                                               that would be
                                                                                               likely to handle
                                                                                               containers of the
                                                                                               agent or
                                                                                               extinguishing
                                                                                               units filled with
                                                                                               the agent; and
                                                                                              --all spills
                                                                                               should be cleaned
                                                                                               up immediately in
                                                                                               accordance with
                                                                                               good industrial
                                                                                               hygiene
                                                                                               practices.
                                                                                              See additional
                                                                                               comments 1, 2, 3,
                                                                                               4, 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
1--Should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and
  1910.162.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the
  area.
3--Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance
  requirements.
4--The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and
  recycled for later use or destroyed.
5--EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective
  equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other
  occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.


[[Page 86885]]


0
7. Appendix Q to subpart G of part 82 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in 
the March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective May 29, 2007

                                      Foam Blowing Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              End-use                      Substitute                  Decision             Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Rigid polyurethane commercial      HCFC-22, HCFC-142b as   Unacceptable \1\...........  Alternatives exist
 refrigeration.                       substitutes for HCFC-  Closed cell foam products     with lower or zero-
--Rigid polyurethane sandwich         141b.                   and products containing      ODP.
 panels.                                                      closed cell foams
--Rigid polyurethane slabstock and                            manufactured with these
 other foams.                                                 substitutes on or before
                                                              December 1, 2017 may be
                                                              used after that date.
--Rigid polyurethane and             HCFC-22, HCFC-142b as   Unacceptable \2\...........  Alternatives exist
 polyisocyanurate laminated           substitutes for CFCs.  Closed cell foam products     with lower or zero-
 boardstock.                                                  and products containing      ODP.
--Rigid polyurethane appliance.....                           closed cell foams
--Rigid polyurethane spray and                                manufactured with these
 commercial refrigeration, and                                substitutes on or before
 sandwich panels.                                             December 1, 2017 may be
--Rigid polyurethane slabstock and                            used after that date.
 other foams.
--Polystyrene extruded insulation
 boardstock and billet.
--Phenolic insulation board and
 bunstock.
--Flexible polyurethane............
--Polystyrene extruded sheet.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the
  unacceptability determination is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of
  November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is
  effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b that currently operates in only
  one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to
  coincide with a move to a new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by
  March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination is effective January 1, 2010.
\2\ For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the
  other foam end-uses, as of November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1,
  2010.


0
8. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 is amended by revising the tables 
titled ``Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to 
Narrowed Use Limits'' and ``Unacceptable Substitutes'' to read as 
follows:

Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82--Unacceptable Substitutes and 
Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions Listed in the July 20, 2015 
Final Rule, Effective August 19, 2015

* * * * *

                   Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                Substitute         Decision       Narrowed use limits    Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance.  HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
                                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2020,       document and retain
                                 365mfc and        Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial  HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 Refrigeration and Sandwich      245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2020,       document and retain
 Panels.                         365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.

[[Page 86886]]

 
Flexible Polyurethane.........  HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
                                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2017,       document and retain
                                 365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof.   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                                                     applications and       investigation of
                                                                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                                                     2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          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        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 and Other.                      245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2019,       document and retain
                                 365mfc and        Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Rigid Polyurethane and          HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 Polyisocyanurate Laminated      245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2017,       document and retain
 Boardstock.                     365mfc and        Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof.   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                                                     applications and       investigation of
                                                                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                                                     2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine      HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 Flotation Foam.                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2020,       document and retain
                                 365mfc and        Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet...  HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
                                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2017,       document and retain
                                 365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.

[[Page 86887]]

 
Polystyrene: Extruded           HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 Boardstock and Billet.          245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2021,       document and retain
                                 365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 Formacel B, and                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 Formacel Z-6.                       2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Integral Skin Polyurethane....  HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
                                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2017,       document and retain
                                 365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          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        Acceptable from        Users are required to
                                 245fa, HFC-       Subject to        January 1, 2020,       document and retain
                                 365mfc, and       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends thereof;   Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 Formacel TI,                        applications and       investigation of
                                 and Formacel Z-                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                 6.                                  2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
Phenolic Insulation Board and   HFC-143a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 Bunstock.                       134a, HFC-        Subject to        January 1, 2017,       document and retain
                                 245fa, HFC-       Narrowed Use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 365mfc, and       Limits.           2022, in military      technical
                                 blends thereof.                     applications and       investigation of
                                                                     until January 1,       alternatives for the
                                                                     2025, in space- and    purpose of
                                                                     aeronautics-related    demonstrating
                                                                     applications where     compliance.
                                                                     reasonable efforts     Information should
                                                                     have been made to      include descriptions
                                                                     ascertain that other   of:
                                                                     alternatives are not   Process or
                                                                     technically feasible   product in which the
                                                                     due to performance     substitute is
                                                                     or safety              needed;
                                                                     requirements.          Substitutes
                                                                    Closed cell foam        examined and
                                                                     products and           rejected;
                                                                     products containing    Reason for
                                                                     closed cell foams      rejection of other
                                                                     manufactured with      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     these substitutes on   performance,
                                                                     or before January 1,   technical or safety
                                                                     2022, for military     standards; and/or
                                                                     applications or on     Anticipated
                                                                     and before January     date other
                                                                     1, 2025, in space-     substitutes will be
                                                                     and aeronautics-       available and
                                                                     related                projected time for
                                                                     applications, may be   switching.
                                                                     used after those
                                                                     dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                            Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                        Substitute                Decision           Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Foam Blowing End-uses............  HCFC-141b and blends     Unacceptable effective   HCFC-141b has an ozone
                                        thereof.                 September 18, 2015.      depletion potential of
                                                                 Closed cell foam         0.11 under the
                                                                 products and products    Montreal Protocol. EPA
                                                                 containing closed cell   previously found HCFC-
                                                                 foams manufactured       141b unacceptable in
                                                                 with these substitutes   all foam blowing end-
                                                                 on or before December    uses (appendix M to
                                                                 1, 2017 may be used      subpart G of 40 CFR
                                                                 after that date.         part 82). HCFC-141b
                                                                                          has an ozone depletion
                                                                                          potential (ODP) of
                                                                                          0.11.
All Foam Blowing end-uses............  HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and  Unacceptable effective   Use or introduction
                                        blends thereof.          September 18, 2015.      into interstate
                                                                 Closed cell foam         commerce of virgin
                                                                 products and products    HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
                                                                 containing closed cell   for foam blowing is
                                                                 foams manufactured       prohibited after
                                                                 with these substitutes   January 1, 2010 under
                                                                 on or before December    EPA's regulations at
                                                                 1, 2017 may be used      40 CFR part 82 subpart
                                                                 after that date.         A unless used,
                                                                                          recovered, and
                                                                                          recycled. These
                                                                                          compounds have ODPs of
                                                                                          0.055 and 0.065,
                                                                                          respectively.

[[Page 86888]]

 
Flexible Polyurethane................  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
                                        HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2017,         agents have global
                                        thereof.                 except where allowed     warming potentials
                                                                 under a narrowed use     (GWPs) ranging from
                                                                 limit.                   725 to 1,430. Other
                                                                                          substitutes will be
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment by
                                                                                          the status change
                                                                                          date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet..........  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
                                        HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2017,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        under a narrowed use     than 370 to
                                                                 limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                Closed cell foam          Other substitutes will
                                                                 products and products    be available for this
                                                                 containing closed cell   end-use with lower
                                                                 foams manufactured       overall risk to human
                                                                 with these substitutes   health and the
                                                                 on or before December    environment by the
                                                                 1, 2017 may be used      status change date.
                                                                 after that date.
Phenolic Insulation Board and          HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC- Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Bunstock.                              245fa, HFC-365mfc, and   January 1, 2017,         agents have GWPs
                                        blends thereof.          except where allowed     ranging from 725 to
                                                                 under a narrowed use     4,470. Other
                                                                 limit.                   substitutes will be
                                                                Closed cell foam          available for this end-
                                                                 products and products    use with lower overall
                                                                 containing closed cell   risk to human health
                                                                 foams manufactured       and the environment by
                                                                 with these substitutes   the status change
                                                                 on or before December    date.
                                                                 1, 2017 may be used
                                                                 after that date.
Integral Skin Polyurethane...........  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
                                        HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2017,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        under a narrowed use     than 370 to
                                                                 limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                                          Other substitutes will
                                                                                          be available for this
                                                                                          end-use with lower
                                                                                          overall risk to human
                                                                                          health and the
                                                                                          environment by the
                                                                                          status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Slabstock and      HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Other.                                 HFC-365mfc and blends    January 1, 2019,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        under a narrowed use     than 370 to
                                                                 limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                Closed cell foam          Other substitutes will
                                                                 products and products    be available for this
                                                                 containing closed cell   end-use with lower
                                                                 foams manufactured       overall risk to human
                                                                 with these substitutes   health and the
                                                                 on or before January     environment by the
                                                                 1, 2019, may be used     status change date.
                                                                 after that date.
Rigid Polyurethane and                 HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Polyisocyanurate Laminated             HFC-365mfc and blends    January 1, 2017,         agents have GWPs
 Boardstock.                            thereof.                 except where allowed     ranging from 725 to
                                                                 under a narrowed use     1,430. Other
                                                                 limit.                   substitutes will be
                                                                Closed cell foam          available for this end-
                                                                 products and products    use with lower overall
                                                                 containing closed cell   risk to human health
                                                                 foams manufactured       and the environment by
                                                                 with these substitutes   the status change
                                                                 on or before December    date.
                                                                 1, 2017 may be used
                                                                 after that date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Marine Flotation   HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Foam.                                  HFC-365mfc and blends    January 1, 2020 except   agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    where allowed under a    ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        narrowed use limit.      than 370 to
                                                                Closed cell foam          approximately 1,500.
                                                                 products and products    Other substitutes will
                                                                 containing closed cell   be available for this
                                                                 foams manufactured       end-use with lower
                                                                 with these substitutes   overall risk to human
                                                                 on or before January     health and the
                                                                 1, 2020, may be used     environment by the
                                                                 after that date.         status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Commercial         HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels.     HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2020 except   agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    where allowed under a    ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        narrowed use limit.      than 370 to
                                                                Closed cell foam          approximately 1,500.
                                                                 products and products    Other substitutes will
                                                                 containing closed cell   be available for this
                                                                 foams manufactured       end-use with lower
                                                                 with these substitutes   overall risk to human
                                                                 on or before January     health and the
                                                                 1, 2020, may be used     environment by the
                                                                 after that date.         status change date.
Rigid Polyurethane: Appliance........  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
                                        HFC-365mfc and blends    January 1, 2020,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        under a narrowed use     than 370 to
                                                                 limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                Closed cell foam          Other substitutes will
                                                                 products and products    be available for this
                                                                 containing closed cell   end-use with lower
                                                                 foams manufactured       overall risk to human
                                                                 with these substitutes   health and the
                                                                 on or before January     environment by the
                                                                 1, 2020, may be used     status change date.
                                                                 after that date.
Polystyrene: Extruded Boardstock and   HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 Billet.                                HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2021,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        Formacel B, and          under a narrowed use     than 140 to
                                        Formacel Z-6.            limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                Closed cell foam          Other substitutes will
                                                                 products and products    be available for this
                                                                 containing closed cell   end-use with lower
                                                                 foams manufactured       overall risk to human
                                                                 with these substitutes   health and the
                                                                 on or before January     environment by the
                                                                 1, 2021, may be used     status change date.
                                                                 after that date.

[[Page 86889]]

 
Polyolefin...........................  HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
                                        HFC-365mfc, and blends   January 1, 2020,         agents have GWPs
                                        thereof; Formacel TI,    except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        and Formacel Z-6.        under a narrowed use     than 370 to
                                                                 limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                                                Closed cell foam          Other substitutes will
                                                                 products and products    be available for this
                                                                 containing closed cell   end-use with lower
                                                                 foams manufactured       overall risk to human
                                                                 with these substitutes   health and the
                                                                 on or before January     environment by the
                                                                 1, 2020, may be used     status change date.
                                                                 after that date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
9. Add appendix V to subpart G of part 82 to read as follows:

Appendix V to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Subject to Use 
Restrictions and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the December 1, 
2016 Final Rule

                               Refrigerants--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use               Substitute        Decision           Use conditions         Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial ice machines       Propane (R-290)  Acceptable,      As of January 3, 2017:      Applicable OSHA
 (self-contained) (new only).                   subject to use  This refrigerant may be      requirements at 29
                                                conditions.      used only in new            CFR part 1910 must
                                                                 equipment designed          be followed,
                                                                 specifically and clearly    including those at
                                                                 identified for the          29 CFR 1910.106
                                                                 refrigerant--i.e., this     (flammable and
                                                                 refrigerant may not be      combustible
                                                                 used as a conversion or     liquids), 1910.110
                                                                 ``retrofit'' refrigerant    (storage and
                                                                 for existing equipment.     handling of
                                                                This refrigerant may be      liquefied petroleum
                                                                 used only in self-          gases), 1910.157
                                                                 contained commercial ice    (portable fire
                                                                 machines that meet all      extinguishers), and
                                                                 requirements listed in      1910.1000 (toxic
                                                                 Supplement SA to UL         and hazardous
                                                                 563.\1\ \2\ \5\ In cases    substances).
                                                                 where this rule includes   Proper ventilation
                                                                 requirements more           should be
                                                                 stringent than those in     maintained at all
                                                                 UL 563, the equipment       times during the
                                                                 must meet the               manufacture and
                                                                 requirements of the final   storage of
                                                                 rule in place of the        equipment
                                                                 requirements in the UL      containing
                                                                 Standard.                   hydrocarbon
                                                                The charge size must not     refrigerants
                                                                 exceed 150g (5.29 oz) in    through adherence
                                                                 each refrigerant circuit    to good
                                                                 of a commercial ice         manufacturing
                                                                 machine.                    practices as per 29
                                                                As provided in clauses       CFR 1910.106. If
                                                                 SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 of UL   refrigerant levels
                                                                 563, the following          in the air
                                                                 markings must be attached   surrounding the
                                                                 at the locations provided   equipment rise
                                                                 and must be permanent:.     above one-fourth of
                                                                (a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire   the lower
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     flammability limit,
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. Do Not    the space should be
                                                                 Use Mechanical Devices To   evacuated and re-
                                                                 Defrost Refrigerator. Do    entry should occur
                                                                 Not Puncture Refrigerant    only after the
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      space has been
                                                                 must be provided on or      properly
                                                                 near any evaporators that   ventilated.
                                                                 can be contacted by the    Technicians and
                                                                 consumer.                   equipment
                                                                (b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire   manufacturers
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     should wear
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. To Be     appropriate
                                                                 Repaired Only By Trained    personal protective
                                                                 Service Personnel. Do Not   equipment,
                                                                 Puncture Refrigerant        including chemical
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      goggles and
                                                                 must be located near the    protective gloves,
                                                                 machine compartment.        when handling
                                                                (c) ``CAUTION--Risk of       propane. Special
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.          care should be
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       taken to avoid
                                                                 Used. Consult Repair        contact with the
                                                                 Manual/Owner's Guide        skin since propane,
                                                                 Before Attempting To        like many
                                                                 Service This Product. All   refrigerants, can
                                                                 Safety Precautions Must     cause freeze burns
                                                                 be Followed.'' This         on the skin.
                                                                 marking must be located    A Class B dry powder
                                                                 near the machine            type fire
                                                                 compartment.                extinguisher should
                                                                (d) ``CAUTION--Risk of       be kept nearby.
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.         Technicians should
                                                                 Dispose of Properly In      only use spark-
                                                                 Accordance With Federal     proof tools when
                                                                 Or Local Regulations.       working on
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       equipment with
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   propane.
                                                                 be provided on the         Any recovery
                                                                 exterior of the             equipment used
                                                                 refrigeration equipment.    should be designed
                                                                (e) ``CAUTION--Risk of       for flammable
                                                                 Fire or Explosion Due To    refrigerants.
                                                                 Puncture Of Refrigerant    Any refrigerant
                                                                 Tubing; Follow Handling     releases should be
                                                                 Instructions Carefully.     in a well-
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       ventilated area,
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   such as outside of
                                                                 be provided near all        a building.
                                                                 exposed refrigerant        Only technicians
                                                                 tubing.                     specifically
                                                                All of these markings must   trained in handling
                                                                 be in letters no less       flammable
                                                                 than 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch)    refrigerants should
                                                                 high.                       service equipment
                                                                The equipment must have      containing propane.
                                                                 red Pantone Matching        Technicians should
                                                                 System (PMS) #185 marked    gain an
                                                                 pipes, hoses, or other      understanding of
                                                                 devices through which the   minimizing the risk
                                                                 refrigerant passes, to      of fire and the
                                                                 indicate the use of a       steps to use
                                                                 flammable refrigerant.      flammable
                                                                 This color must be          refrigerants
                                                                 applied at all service      safely.
                                                                 ports and other parts of   Room occupants
                                                                 the system where service    should evacuate the
                                                                 puncturing or other         space immediately
                                                                 actions creating an         following the
                                                                 opening from the            accidental release
                                                                 refrigerant circuit to      of this
                                                                 the atmosphere might be     refrigerant.
                                                                 expected and must extend   If a service port is
                                                                 a minimum of one (1) inch   added then,
                                                                 in both directions from     commercial ice
                                                                 such locations.             machines or
                                                                                             equipment using
                                                                                             propane should have
                                                                                             service aperture
                                                                                             fittings that
                                                                                             differ from
                                                                                             fittings used in
                                                                                             equipment or
                                                                                             containers using
                                                                                             non-flammable
                                                                                             refrigerant.
                                                                                             ``Differ'' means
                                                                                             that either the
                                                                                             diameter differs by
                                                                                             at least \1/16\
                                                                                             inch or the thread
                                                                                             direction is
                                                                                             reversed (i.e.,
                                                                                             right-handed vs.
                                                                                             left-handed). These
                                                                                             different fittings
                                                                                             should be
                                                                                             permanently affixed
                                                                                             to the unit at the
                                                                                             point of service
                                                                                             and maintained
                                                                                             until the end-of-
                                                                                             life of the unit,
                                                                                             and should not be
                                                                                             accessed with an
                                                                                             adaptor.

[[Page 86890]]

 
Very low temperature          Propane (R-290)  Acceptable,      As of January 3, 2017:      Applicable OSHA
 refrigeration equipment                        subject to use  This refrigerant may be      requirements at 29
 (new only).                                    conditions.      used only in new            CFR part 1910 must
                                                                 equipment designed          be followed,
                                                                 specifically and clearly    including those at
                                                                 identified for the          29 CFR 1910.94
                                                                 refrigerant--i.e., this     (ventilation) and
                                                                 refrigerant may not be      1910.106 (flammable
                                                                 used as a conversion or     and combustible
                                                                 ``retrofit'' refrigerant    liquids), 1910.110
                                                                 for existing equipment.     (storage and
                                                                This refrigerant may only    handling of
                                                                 be used in equipment that   liquefied petroleum
                                                                 meets all requirements in   gases), 1910.157
                                                                 Supplement SB to UL         (portable fire
                                                                 471.\1\ \2\ \4\ In cases    extinguishers), and
                                                                 where the final rule        1910.1000 (toxic
                                                                 includes requirements       and hazardous
                                                                 more stringent than those   substances).
                                                                 of UL 471, the appliance   Proper ventilation
                                                                 must meet the               should be
                                                                 requirements of the final   maintained at all
                                                                 rule in place of the        times during the
                                                                 requirements in the UL      manufacture and
                                                                 Standard.                   storage of
                                                                The charge size for the      equipment
                                                                 equipment must not exceed   containing
                                                                 150 grams (5.29 ounces)     hydrocarbon
                                                                 in each refrigerant         refrigerants
                                                                 circuit of the very low     through adherence
                                                                 temperature refrigeration   to good
                                                                 equipment.                  manufacturing
                                                                As provided in clauses       practices as per 29
                                                                 SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL    CFR 1910.106. If
                                                                 471, the following          refrigerant levels
                                                                 markings must be attached   in the air
                                                                 at the locations provided   surrounding the
                                                                 and must be permanent:.     equipment rise
                                                                (a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire   above one-fourth of
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     the lower
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. Do Not    flammability limit,
                                                                 Use Mechanical Devices To   the space should be
                                                                 Defrost Refrigerator. Do    evacuated and re-
                                                                 Not Puncture Refrigerant    entry should occur
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      only after the
                                                                 must be provided on or      space has been
                                                                 near any evaporators that   properly
                                                                 can be contacted by the     ventilated.
                                                                 consumer.                  Technicians and
                                                                (b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire   equipment
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     manufacturers
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. To Be     should wear
                                                                 Repaired Only By Trained    appropriate
                                                                 Service Personnel. Do Not   personal protective
                                                                 Puncture Refrigerant        equipment,
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      including chemical
                                                                 must be located near the    goggles and
                                                                 machine compartment.        protective gloves,
                                                                (c) ``CAUTION--Risk of       when handling
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.          propane. Special
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       care should be
                                                                 Used. Consult Repair        taken to avoid
                                                                 Manual/Owner's Guide        contact with the
                                                                 Before Attempting To        skin since propane,
                                                                 Service This Product. All   like many
                                                                 Safety Precautions Must     refrigerants, can
                                                                 be Followed.'' This         cause freeze burns
                                                                 marking must be located     on the skin.
                                                                 near the machine           A Class B dry powder
                                                                 compartment.                type fire
                                                                (d) ``CAUTION--Risk of       extinguisher should
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.          be kept nearby.
                                                                 Dispose of Properly In     Technicians should
                                                                 Accordance With Federal     only use spark-
                                                                 Or Local Regulations.       proof tools when
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       working on
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   equipment with
                                                                 be provided on the          flammable
                                                                 exterior of the             refrigerants.
                                                                 refrigeration equipment.   Any recovery
                                                                (e) ``CAUTION--Risk of       equipment used
                                                                 Fire or Explosion Due To    should be designed
                                                                 Puncture Of Refrigerant     for flammable
                                                                 Tubing; Follow Handling     refrigerants.
                                                                 Instructions Carefully.    Any refrigerant
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       releases should be
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   in a well-
                                                                 be provided near all        ventilated area,
                                                                 exposed refrigerant         such as outside of
                                                                 tubing.                     a building.
                                                                All of these markings must  Only technicians
                                                                 be in letters no less       specifically
                                                                 than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch)      trained in handling
                                                                 high.                       flammable
                                                                The equipment must have      refrigerants should
                                                                 red PMS #185 marked         service equipment
                                                                 pipes, hoses, or other      containing propane.
                                                                 devices through which the   Technicians should
                                                                 refrigerant passes, to      gain an
                                                                 indicate the use of a       understanding of
                                                                 flammable refrigerant.      minimizing the risk
                                                                 This color must be          of fire and the
                                                                 applied at all service      steps to use
                                                                 ports and other parts of    flammable
                                                                 the system where service    refrigerants
                                                                 puncturing or other         safely.
                                                                 actions creating an        Room occupants
                                                                 opening from the            should evacuate the
                                                                 refrigerant circuit to      space immediately
                                                                 the atmosphere might be     following the
                                                                 expected and must extend    accidental release
                                                                 a minimum of one (1) inch   of this
                                                                 in both directions from     refrigerant.
                                                                 such locations.            If a service port is
                                                                                             added, then very
                                                                                             low temperature
                                                                                             equipment using
                                                                                             propane should have
                                                                                             service aperture
                                                                                             fittings that
                                                                                             differ from
                                                                                             fittings used in
                                                                                             equipment or
                                                                                             containers using
                                                                                             non-flammable
                                                                                             refrigerant.
                                                                                             ``Differ'' means
                                                                                             that either the
                                                                                             diameter differs by
                                                                                             at least \1/16\
                                                                                             inch or the thread
                                                                                             direction is
                                                                                             reversed (i.e.,
                                                                                             right-handed vs.
                                                                                             left-handed). These
                                                                                             different fittings
                                                                                             should be
                                                                                             permanently affixed
                                                                                             to the unit at the
                                                                                             point of service
                                                                                             and maintained
                                                                                             until the end-of-
                                                                                             life of the unit,
                                                                                             and should not be
                                                                                             accessed with an
                                                                                             adaptor.
                                                                                            Very low temperature
                                                                                             equipment using
                                                                                             propane may also
                                                                                             use another
                                                                                             acceptable
                                                                                             refrigerant
                                                                                             substitute in a
                                                                                             separate
                                                                                             refrigerant circuit
                                                                                             or stage (e.g., one
                                                                                             temperature stage
                                                                                             with propane and a
                                                                                             second stage with
                                                                                             ethane).

[[Page 86891]]

 
Water coolers (new only)....  Propane (R-290)  Acceptable,      As of January 3, 2017:      Applicable OSHA
                                                subject to use  This refrigerant may be      requirements at 29
                                                conditions.      used only in new            CFR part 1910 must
                                                                 equipment designed          be followed,
                                                                 specifically and clearly    including those at
                                                                 identified for the          29 CFR 1910.94
                                                                 refrigerant--i.e., this     (ventilation) and
                                                                 refrigerant may not be      1910.106 (flammable
                                                                 used as a conversion or     and combustible
                                                                 ``retrofit'' refrigerant    liquids), 1910.110
                                                                 for existing equipment.     (storage and
                                                                This refrigerant may be      handling of
                                                                 used only in water          liquefied petroleum
                                                                 coolers that meet all       gases), 1910.157
                                                                 requirements listed in      (portable fire
                                                                 Supplement SB to UL 399     extinguishers), and
                                                                 \1\ \2\ \3\ In cases        1910.1000 (toxic
                                                                 where the rule includes     and hazardous
                                                                 requirements more           substances).
                                                                 stringent than those of    Proper ventilation
                                                                 the UL 399, the appliance   should be
                                                                 must meet the               maintained at all
                                                                 requirements of the final   times during the
                                                                 rule in place of the        manufacture and
                                                                 requirements in the UL      storage of
                                                                 Standard.                   equipment
                                                                The charge size must not     containing
                                                                 exceed 60 grams (2.12       hydrocarbon
                                                                 ounces) per refrigerant     refrigerants
                                                                 circuit in the water        through adherence
                                                                 cooler.                     to good
                                                                The equipment must have      manufacturing
                                                                 red PMS #185 marked         practices as per 29
                                                                 pipes, hoses, or other      CFR 1910.106. If
                                                                 devices through which the   refrigerant levels
                                                                 refrigerant passes, to      in the air
                                                                 indicate the use of a       surrounding the
                                                                 flammable refrigerant.      equipment rise
                                                                 This color must be          above one-fourth of
                                                                 applied at all service      the lower
                                                                 ports and other parts of    flammability limit,
                                                                 the system where service    the space should be
                                                                 puncturing or other         evacuated and re-
                                                                 actions creating an         entry should occur
                                                                 opening from the            only after the
                                                                 refrigerant circuit to      space has been
                                                                 the atmosphere might be     properly
                                                                 expected and must extend    ventilated.
                                                                 a minimum of one (1) inch  Technicians and
                                                                 in both directions from     equipment
                                                                 such locations.             manufacturers
                                                                As provided in clauses       should wear
                                                                 SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL    appropriate
                                                                 399, the following          personal protective
                                                                 markings must be attached   equipment,
                                                                 at the locations provided   including chemical
                                                                 and must be permanent:.     goggles and
                                                                (a) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire   protective gloves,
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     when handling
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. Do Not    propane. Special
                                                                 Use Mechanical Devices To   care should be
                                                                 Defrost Refrigerator. Do    taken to avoid
                                                                 Not Puncture Refrigerant    contact with the
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      skin since propane,
                                                                 must be provided on or      like many
                                                                 near any evaporators that   refrigerants, can
                                                                 can be contacted by the     cause freeze burns
                                                                 consumer.                   on the skin.
                                                                (b) ``DANGER--Risk of Fire  A Class B dry powder
                                                                 or Explosion. Flammable     type fire
                                                                 Refrigerant Used. To Be     extinguisher should
                                                                 Repaired Only By Trained    be kept nearby.
                                                                 Service Personnel. Do Not  Technicians should
                                                                 Puncture Refrigerant        only use spark-
                                                                 Tubing.'' This marking      proof tools when
                                                                 must be located near the    working on
                                                                 machine compartment.        equipment with
                                                                (c) ``CAUTION--Risk of       flammable
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.          refrigerants.
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant      Any recovery
                                                                 Used. Consult Repair        equipment used
                                                                 Manual/Owner's Guide        should be designed
                                                                 Before Attempting To        for flammable
                                                                 Service This Product. All   refrigerants.
                                                                 Safety Precautions Must    Any refrigerant
                                                                 be Followed.'' This         releases should be
                                                                 marking must be located     in a well-
                                                                 near the machine            ventilated area,
                                                                 compartment.                such as outside of
                                                                (d) ``CAUTION--Risk of       a building.
                                                                 Fire or Explosion.         Only technicians
                                                                 Dispose of Properly In      specifically
                                                                 Accordance With Federal     trained in handling
                                                                 Or Local Regulations.       flammable
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       refrigerants should
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   service equipment
                                                                 be provided on the          containing propane.
                                                                 exterior of the             Technicians should
                                                                 refrigeration equipment.    gain an
                                                                (e) ``CAUTION--Risk of       understanding of
                                                                 Fire or Explosion Due To    minimizing the risk
                                                                 Puncture Of Refrigerant     of fire and the
                                                                 Tubing; Follow Handling     steps to use
                                                                 Instructions Carefully.     flammable
                                                                 Flammable Refrigerant       refrigerants
                                                                 Used.'' This marking must   safely.
                                                                 be provided near all       Room occupants
                                                                 exposed refrigerant         should evacuate the
                                                                 tubing.                     space immediately
                                                                                             following the
                                                                                             accidental release
                                                                                             of this
                                                                                             refrigerant.
                                                                                            If a service port is
                                                                                             added, then water
                                                                                             coolers or
                                                                                             equipment using
                                                                                             propane should have
                                                                                             service aperture
                                                                                             fittings that
                                                                                             differ from
                                                                                             fittings used in
                                                                                             equipment or
                                                                                             containers using
                                                                                             non-flammable
                                                                                             refrigerant.
                                                                                             ``Differ'' means
                                                                                             that either the
                                                                                             diameter differs by
                                                                                             at least \1/16\
                                                                                             inch or the thread
                                                                                             direction is
                                                                                             reversed (i.e.,
                                                                                             right-handed vs.
                                                                                             left-handed). These
                                                                                             different fittings
                                                                                             should be
                                                                                             permanently affixed
                                                                                             to the unit at the
                                                                                             point of service
                                                                                             and maintained
                                                                                             until the end-of-
                                                                                             life of the unit,
                                                                                             and should not be
                                                                                             accessed with an
                                                                                             adaptor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
  part 51). You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA's Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
  Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
  questions regarding access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA's Air and Radiation Docket is 202-
  566-1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
\2\ You may obtain the material from: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue,
  Bensenville, IL 60106; 2000.com">orders@comm-2000.com; 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-
  352-2168); http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com.
\3\ UL 399, Standard for Safety: DrinkingWater Coolers.--Supplement SB: Requirements for Drinking Water Coolers
  Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 7th edition, Dated August 22, 2008, including
  revisions through October 17, 2013.
\4\ UL 471, Standard for Safety: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers--Supplement SB: Requirements for
  Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 10th edition, Dated
  November 24, 2010.
\5\ UL 563, Standard for Safety: Ice Makers.--Supplement SA: Requirements for Ice Makers Employing a Flammable
  Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 8th edition, Dated July 31, 2009, including revisions through
  November 29, 2013.


[[Page 86892]]


                       Refrigerants--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                Substitutes        Decision       Narrowed use limits    Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal chillers (new       HFC-134a........  Acceptable        Acceptable after       Users are required to
 only).                                            subject to        January 1, 2024,       document and retain
                                                   narrowed use      only in military       the results of their
                                                   limits.           marine vessels where   technical
                                                                     reasonable efforts     investigation of
                                                                     have been made to      alternatives for the
                                                                     ascertain that other   purpose of
                                                                     alternatives are not   demonstrating
                                                                     technically feasible   compliance.
                                                                     due to performance     Information should
                                                                     or safety              include descriptions
                                                                     requirements.          of:
                                                                                            Application
                                                                                            in which the
                                                                                            substitute is
                                                                                            needed;
                                                                                            Substitutes
                                                                                            examined and
                                                                                            rejected;
                                                                                            Reason for
                                                                                            rejection of other
                                                                                            alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                                            performance,
                                                                                            technical or safety
                                                                                            standards; and/or
                                                                                            Anticipated
                                                                                            date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            qualified and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
Centrifugal chillers (new       HFC-134a and R-   Acceptable        Acceptable after       Users are required to
 only).                          404A.             subject to        January 1, 2024,       document and retain
                                                   narrowed use      only in human-rated    the results of their
                                                   limits.           spacecraft and         technical
                                                                     related support        investigation of
                                                                     equipment where        alternatives for the
                                                                     reasonable efforts     purpose of
                                                                     have been made to      demonstrating
                                                                     ascertain that other   compliance.
                                                                     alternatives are not   Information should
                                                                     technically feasible   include descriptions
                                                                     due to performance     of:
                                                                     or safety              Application
                                                                     requirements.          in which the
                                                                                            substitute is
                                                                                            needed;
                                                                                            Substitutes
                                                                                            examined and
                                                                                            rejected;
                                                                                            Reason for
                                                                                            rejection of other
                                                                                            alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                                            performance,
                                                                                            technical or safety
                                                                                            standards; and/or
                                                                                            Anticipated
                                                                                            date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            qualified and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
Positive displacement chillers  HFC-134a........  Acceptable        Acceptable after       Users are required to
 (new only).                                       subject to        January 1, 2024,       document and retain
                                                   narrowed use      only in military       the results of their
                                                   limits.           marine vessels where   technical
                                                                     reasonable efforts     investigation of
                                                                     have been made to      alternatives for the
                                                                     ascertain that other   purpose of
                                                                     alternatives are not   demonstrating
                                                                     technically feasible   compliance.
                                                                     due to performance     Information should
                                                                     or safety              include descriptions
                                                                     requirements.          of:
                                                                                            Application
                                                                                            in which the
                                                                                            substitute is
                                                                                            needed;
                                                                                            Substitutes
                                                                                            examined and
                                                                                            rejected;
                                                                                            Reason for
                                                                                            rejection of other
                                                                                            alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                                            performance,
                                                                                            technical or safety
                                                                                            standards; and/or
                                                                                            Anticipated
                                                                                            date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            qualified and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
Positive displacement chillers  HFC-134a and R-   Acceptable        Acceptable after       Users are required to
 (new only).                     404A.             subject to        January 1, 2024,       document and retain
                                                   narrowed use      only in human-rated    the results of their
                                                   limits.           spacecraft and         technical
                                                                     related support        investigation of
                                                                     equipment where        alternatives for the
                                                                     reasonable efforts     purpose of
                                                                     have been made to      demonstrating
                                                                     ascertain that other   compliance.
                                                                     alternatives are not   Information should
                                                                     technically feasible   include descriptions
                                                                     due to performance     of:
                                                                     or safety              Application
                                                                     requirements.          in which the
                                                                                            substitute is
                                                                                            needed;
                                                                                            Substitutes
                                                                                            examined and
                                                                                            rejected;
                                                                                            Reason for
                                                                                            rejection of other
                                                                                            alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                                            performance,
                                                                                            technical or safety
                                                                                            standards; and/or
                                                                                            Anticipated
                                                                                            date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            qualified and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Refrigerants--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                       Substitutes                Decision           Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrifugal chillers (new only)......  FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-     Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants have
                                        134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-    January 1, 2024 except   GWPs ranging from
                                        236fa, HFC-245fa, R-     where allowed under a    approximately 900 to
                                        125/134a/600a (28.1/70/  narrowed use limit.      9,810. Other
                                        1.9), R-125/290/134a/                             alternatives will be
                                        600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/                              available for this end-
                                        1.5), R-404A, R-407C,                             use with lower overall
                                        R-410A, R-410B, R-                                risk to human health
                                        417A, R-421A, R-422B,                             and the environment by
                                        R-422C, R-422D, R-                                the status change
                                        423A, R-424A, R-434A,                             date.
                                        R-438A, R-507A, RS-44
                                        (2003 composition),
                                        and THR-03.
Centrifugal chillers (new only)......  Propylene (R-1270) and   Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants are
                                        R-443A.                  January 3, 2017.         highly photochemically
                                                                                          reactive in the lower
                                                                                          atmosphere and may
                                                                                          deteriorate local air
                                                                                          quality (that is, may
                                                                                          increase ground level
                                                                                          ozone). Other
                                                                                          alternatives are
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment.

[[Page 86893]]

 
Cold storage warehouses (new only)...  HFC-227ea, R-125/290/    Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants have
                                        134a/600a (55.0/1.0/     January 1, 2023.         GWPs ranging from
                                        42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-                             approximately 2,090 to
                                        407A, R-407B, R-410A,                             3,990. Other
                                        R-410B, R-417A, R-                                alternatives will be
                                        421A, R-421B, R-422A,                             available for this end-
                                        R-422B, R-422C, R-                                use with lower overall
                                        422D, R-423A, R-424A,                             risk to human health
                                        R-428A, R-434A, R-                                and the environment by
                                        438A, R-507A, and RS-                             the status change
                                        44 (2003 composition).                            date.
Cold storage warehouses (new only)...  Propylene (R-1270) and   Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants are
                                        R-443A.                  January 3, 2017.         highly photochemically
                                                                                          reactive in the lower
                                                                                          atmosphere and may
                                                                                          deteriorate local air
                                                                                          quality (that is, may
                                                                                          increase ground level
                                                                                          ozone). Other
                                                                                          alternatives are
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment.
Household refrigerators and freezers   FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-     Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants have
 (new only).                            134a, KDD6, R-125/290/   January 1, 2021.         GWPs ranging from
                                        134a/600a (55.0/1.0/                              approximately 900 to
                                        42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-                             3,985. Other
                                        407C, R-407F, R-410A,                             alternatives will be
                                        R-410B, R-417A, R-                                available for this end-
                                        421A, R-421B, R-422A,                             use with lower overall
                                        R-422B, R-422C, R-                                risk to human health
                                        422D, R-424A, R-426A,                             and the environment by
                                        R-428A, R-434A, R-                                the status change
                                        437A, R-438A, R-507A,                             date.
                                        RS-24 (2002
                                        formulation), RS-44
                                        (2003 formulation),
                                        SP34E, and THR-03.
Positive displacement chillers (new    FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-     Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants have
 only).                                 134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6,   January 1, 2024 except   GWPs ranging from
                                        R-125/134a/600a (28.1/   where allowed under a    approximately 900 to
                                        70/1.9), R-125/290/      narrowed use limit.      3,985. Other
                                        134a/600a (55.0/1.0/                              alternatives will be
                                        42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-                             available for this end-
                                        407C, R-410A, R-410B,                             use with lower overall
                                        R-417A, R-421A, R-                                risk to human health
                                        422B, R-422C, R-422D,                             and the environment by
                                        R-424A, R-434A, R-                                the status change
                                        437A, R-438A, R-507A,                             date.
                                        RS-44 (2003
                                        composition), SP34E,
                                        and THR-03.
Positive displacement chillers (new    Propylene (R-1270) and   Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants are
 only).                                 R-443A.                  January 3, 2017.         highly photochemically
                                                                                          reactive in the lower
                                                                                          atmosphere and may
                                                                                          deteriorate local air
                                                                                          quality (that is, may
                                                                                          increase ground level
                                                                                          ozone). Other
                                                                                          alternatives are
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment.
Residential and light commercial air   Propylene (R-1270) and   Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants are
 conditioning and heat pumps (new       R-443A.                  January 3, 2017.         highly photochemically
 only).                                                                                   reactive in the lower
                                                                                          atmosphere and may
                                                                                          deteriorate local air
                                                                                          quality (that is, may
                                                                                          increase ground level
                                                                                          ozone). Other
                                                                                          alternatives are
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment.
Residential and light commercial air   All refrigerants         Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants are
 conditioning--unitary split AC         identified as            January 3, 2017.         highly flammable and
 systems and heat pumps (retrofit       flammability Class 3                              present a flammability
 only).                                 in ANSI/ASHRAE                                    risk when used in
                                        Standard 34-2013 1 2 3.                           equipment designed for
                                       All refrigerants                                   nonflammable
                                        meeting the criteria                              refrigerants. Other
                                        for flammability Class                            alternatives are
                                        3 in ANSI/ASHRAE                                  available for this end-
                                        Standard 34-2013. This                            use with lower overall
                                        includes, but is not                              risk to human health
                                        limited to,                                       and the environment.
                                        refrigerant products
                                        sold under the names R-
                                        22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a
                                        refrigerant, Coolant
                                        Express 22a, DURACOOL-
                                        22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez
                                        EF-22a, Envirosafe
                                        22a, ES-22a, Frost
                                        22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
                                        Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-
                                        Chill 22a, Priority
                                        Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
Retail food refrigeration              HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/  Unacceptable as of       These refrigerants have
 (refrigerated food processing and      290/134a/600a (55.0/     January 1, 2021.         GWPs ranging from
 dispensing equipment) (new only).      1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A,                            approximately 1,770 to
                                        R-407A, R-407B, R-                                3,990. Other
                                        407C, R-407F, R-410A,                             alternatives will be
                                        R-410B, R-417A, R-                                available for this end-
                                        421A, R-421B, R-422A,                             use with lower overall
                                        R-422B, R-422C, R-                                risk to human health
                                        422D, R-424A, R-428A,                             and the environment by
                                        R-434A, R-437A, R-                                the status change
                                        438A, R-507A, RS-44                               date.
                                        (2003 formulation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
  part 51). You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA's Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
  Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
  questions regarding access to this standard, the telephone number of EPA's Air and Radiation Docket is 202-566-
  1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
\2\ You may obtain this material from: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
  (ASHRAE) 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; 1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada; http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=.
\3\ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, 2013.


[[Page 86894]]


                   Foam Blowing Agents--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            End-use                Substitutes        Decision       Narrowed use limits    Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high-     HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 pressure two-component.         245fa, and        subject to        January 1, 2020,       document and retain
                                 blends thereof;   narrowed use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends of HFC-    limits.           2025, only in          technical
                                 365mfc with at                      military or space-     investigation of
                                 least four                          and aeronautics-       alternatives for the
                                 percent HFC-                        related applications   purpose of
                                 245fa, and                          where reasonable       demonstrating
                                 commercial                          efforts have been      compliance.
                                 blends of HFC-                      made to ascertain      Information should
                                 365mfc with                         that other             include descriptions
                                 seven to 13                         alternatives are not   of:
                                 percent HFC-                        technically feasible   Process or
                                 227ea and the                       due to performance     product in which the
                                 remainder HFC-                      or safety              substitute is
                                 365mfc; and                         requirements.          needed;
                                 Formacel TI.                       Closed cell foam        Substitutes
                                                                     products and           examined and
                                                                     products containing    rejected;
                                                                     closed cell foams      Reason for
                                                                     manufactured with      rejection of other
                                                                     these substitutes on   alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     or before January 1,   performance,
                                                                     2025, may be used      technical or safety
                                                                     after that date.       standards; and/or
                                                                                            Anticipated
                                                                                            date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low-      HFC-134a, HFC-    Acceptable        Acceptable from        Users are required to
 pressure two-component.         245fa, and        subject to        January 1, 2021,       document and retain
                                 blends thereof;   narrowed use      until January 1,       the results of their
                                 blends of HFC-    limits.           2025, only in          technical
                                 365mfc with at                      military or space-     investigation of
                                 least four                          and aeronautics-       alternatives for the
                                 percent HFC-                        related applications   purpose of
                                 245fa, and                          where reasonable       demonstrating
                                 commercial                          efforts have been      compliance.
                                 blends of HFC-                      made to ascertain      Information should
                                 365mfc with                         that other             include descriptions
                                 seven to 13                         alternatives are not   of:
                                 percent HFC-                        technically feasible   Process or
                                 227ea and the                       due to performance     product in which the
                                 remainder HFC-                      or safety              substitute is
                                 365mfc; and                         requirements.          needed;
                                 Formacel TI.                       Low pressure two-       Substitutes
                                                                     component spray foam   examined and
                                                                     kits manufactured      rejected;
                                                                     with these             Reason for
                                                                     substitutes on or      rejection of other
                                                                     before January 1,      alternatives, e.g.,
                                                                     2025, for military     performance,
                                                                     or space- and          technical or safety
                                                                     aeronautics-related    standards; and/or
                                                                     applications may be    Anticipated
                                                                     used after that date.  date other
                                                                                            substitutes will be
                                                                                            available and
                                                                                            projected time for
                                                                                            switching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  Foam Blowing Agents--Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                       Substitutes                Decision           Further information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flexible PU..........................  Methylene chloride.....  Unacceptable as of       Methylene chloride is a
                                                                 January 3, 2017.         carcinogen and may
                                                                                          present a toxicity
                                                                                          risk. Other
                                                                                          alternatives are
                                                                                          available for this end-
                                                                                          use with lower overall
                                                                                          risk to human health
                                                                                          and the environment.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--one component    HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 foam sealants.                         and blends thereof;      January 1, 2020.         agents have GWPs
                                        blends of HFC-365mfc    One-component foam        ranging from higher
                                        with at least four       sealant cans             than 730 to
                                        percent HFC-245fa, and   manufactured with        approximately 1,500.
                                        commercial blends of     these substitutes on     Other alternatives
                                        HFC-365mfc with seven    or before January 1,     will be available for
                                        to 13 percent HFC-       2020, may be used        this end-use with
                                        227ea and the            after that date.         lower overall risk to
                                        remainder HFC-365mfc;                             human health and the
                                        and Formacel TI.                                  environment by the
                                                                                          status change date.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--high-pressure    HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 two-component.                         and blends thereof;      January 1, 2020,         agents have GWPs
                                        blends of HFC-365mfc     except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        with at least four       under a narrowed use     than 730 to
                                        percent HFC-245fa, and   limit. Closed cell       approximately 1,500.
                                        commercial blends of     foam products and        Other alternatives
                                        HFC-365mfc with seven    products containing      will be available for
                                        to 13 percent HFC-       closed cell foams        this end-use with
                                        227ea and the            manufactured with        lower overall risk to
                                        remainder HFC-365mfc;    these substitutes on     human health and the
                                        and Formacel TI.         or before January 1,     environment by the
                                                                 2020, may be used        status change date.
                                                                 after that date.
Rigid PU: Spray foam--low-pressure     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa,     Unacceptable as of       These foam blowing
 two-component.                         and blends thereof;      January 1, 2021,         agents have GWPs
                                        blends of HFC-365mfc     except where allowed     ranging from higher
                                        with at least four       under a narrowed use     than 730 to
                                        percent HFC-245fa, and   limit.                   approximately 1,500.
                                        commercial blends of    Low pressure two-         Other alternatives
                                        HFC-365mfc with seven    component spray foam     will be available for
                                        to 13 percent HFC-       kits manufactured with   this end-use with
                                        227ea and the            these substitutes on     lower overall risk to
                                        remainder HFC-365mfc;    or before January 1,     human health and the
                                        and Formacel TI.         2025, may be used        environment by the
                                                                 after that date.         status change date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 86895]]


                                 Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection Agents--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               End-use                       Substitute                Decision              Use conditions                Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming...........................  2-BTP..................  Acceptable, subject to   As of January 3, 2017,   This fire suppressant has a relatively
                                                                use conditions.          acceptable only for      low GWP of 0.23-0.26 and a short
                                                                                         use in handheld          atmospheric lifetime of approximately
                                                                                         extinguishers in         seven days.
                                                                                         aircraft.               This agent is subject to requirements
                                                                                                                  contained in a Toxic Substance Control
                                                                                                                  Act (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order
                                                                                                                  and any subsequent TSCA section
                                                                                                                  5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule
                                                                                                                  (SNUR).
                                                                                                                 For establishments manufacturing,
                                                                                                                  installing and maintaining handheld
                                                                                                                  extinguishers using this agent:
                                                                                                                 (1) Use of this agent should be used in
                                                                                                                  accordance with the latest edition of
                                                                                                                  NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire
                                                                                                                  Extinguishers;
                                                                                                                 (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled,
                                                                                                                  person(s) should be immediately
                                                                                                                  removed and exposed to fresh air; if
                                                                                                                  breathing is difficult, person(s)
                                                                                                                  should seek medical attention;
                                                                                                                 (3) Eye wash and quick drench
                                                                                                                  facilities should be available. In
                                                                                                                  case of ocular exposure, person(s)
                                                                                                                  should immediately flush the eyes,
                                                                                                                  including under the eyelids, with
                                                                                                                  fresh water and move to a non-
                                                                                                                  contaminated area;
                                                                                                                 (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all
                                                                                                                  contaminated clothing and footwear to
                                                                                                                  avoid irritation, and medical
                                                                                                                  attention should be sought if
                                                                                                                  irritation develops or persists;
                                                                                                                 (5) Although unlikely, in case of
                                                                                                                  ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
                                                                                                                  should consult a physician
                                                                                                                  immediately;
                                                                                                                 (6) Manufacturing space should be
                                                                                                                  equipped with specialized engineering
                                                                                                                  controls and well ventilated with a
                                                                                                                  local exhaust system and low-lying
                                                                                                                  source ventilation to effectively
                                                                                                                  mitigate potential occupational
                                                                                                                  exposure; regular testing and
                                                                                                                  monitoring of the workplace atmosphere
                                                                                                                  should be conducted;
                                                                                                                 (7) Employees responsible for chemical
                                                                                                                  processing should wear the appropriate
                                                                                                                  PPE, such as protective gloves,
                                                                                                                  tightly sealed goggles, protective
                                                                                                                  work clothing, and suitable
                                                                                                                  respiratory protection in case of
                                                                                                                  accidental release or insufficient
                                                                                                                  ventilation;
                                                                                                                 (8) All spills should be cleaned up
                                                                                                                  immediately in accordance with good
                                                                                                                  industrial hygiene practices; and
                                                                                                                 (9) Training for safe handling
                                                                                                                  procedures should be provided to all
                                                                                                                  employees that would be likely to
                                                                                                                  handle containers of the agent or
                                                                                                                  extinguishing units filled with the
                                                                                                                  agent.
Total flooding......................  2-BTP..................  Acceptable, subject to   As of January 3, 2017,   This fire suppressant has a relatively
                                                                use conditions.          acceptable only for      low GWP of 0.23-0.26 and a short
                                                                                         use in engine nacelles   atmospheric lifetime of approximately
                                                                                         and auxiliary power      seven days.
                                                                                         units on aircraft.      This agent is subject to requirements
                                                                                                                  contained in a TSCA section 5(e)
                                                                                                                  Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA
                                                                                                                  section 5(a)(2) SNUR.
                                                                                                                 For establishments manufacturing,
                                                                                                                  installing, and servicing engine
                                                                                                                  nacelles and auxiliary power units on
                                                                                                                  aircraft using this agent:
                                                                                                                 (1) This agent should be used in
                                                                                                                  accordance with the safety guidelines
                                                                                                                  in the latest edition of the National
                                                                                                                  Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
                                                                                                                  2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire
                                                                                                                  Extinguishing Systems;
                                                                                                                 (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled,
                                                                                                                  person(s) should be immediately
                                                                                                                  removed and exposed to fresh air; if
                                                                                                                  breathing is difficult, person(s)
                                                                                                                  should seek medical attention;
                                                                                                                 (3) Eye wash and quick drench
                                                                                                                  facilities should be available. In
                                                                                                                  case of ocular exposure, person(s)
                                                                                                                  should immediately flush the eyes,
                                                                                                                  including under the eyelids, with
                                                                                                                  fresh water and move to a non-
                                                                                                                  contaminated area.
                                                                                                                 (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all
                                                                                                                  contaminated clothing and footwear to
                                                                                                                  avoid irritation, and medical
                                                                                                                  attention should be sought if
                                                                                                                  irritation develops or persists;
                                                                                                                 (5) Although unlikely, in case of
                                                                                                                  ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s)
                                                                                                                  should consult a physician
                                                                                                                  immediately;
                                                                                                                 (6) Manufacturing space should be
                                                                                                                  equipped with specialized engineering
                                                                                                                  controls and well ventilated with a
                                                                                                                  local exhaust system and low-lying
                                                                                                                  source ventilation to effectively
                                                                                                                  mitigate potential occupational
                                                                                                                  exposure; regular testing and
                                                                                                                  monitoring of the workplace atmosphere
                                                                                                                  should be conducted;
                                                                                                                 (7) Employees responsible for chemical
                                                                                                                  processing should wear the appropriate
                                                                                                                  PPE, such as protective gloves,
                                                                                                                  tightly sealed goggles, protective
                                                                                                                  work clothing, and suitable
                                                                                                                  respiratory protection in case of
                                                                                                                  accidental release or insufficient
                                                                                                                  ventilation;
                                                                                                                 (8) All spills should be cleaned up
                                                                                                                  immediately in accordance with good
                                                                                                                  industrial hygiene practices;
                                                                                                                 (9) Training for safe handling
                                                                                                                  procedures should be provided to all
                                                                                                                  employees that would be likely to
                                                                                                                  handle containers of the agent or
                                                                                                                  extinguishing units filled with the
                                                                                                                  agent;
                                                                                                                 (10) Safety features that are typical
                                                                                                                  of total flooding systems such as pre-
                                                                                                                  discharge alarms, time delays, and
                                                                                                                  system abort switches should be
                                                                                                                  provided, as directed by applicable
                                                                                                                  OSHA regulations and NFPA standards;
                                                                                                                  use of this agent should also conform
                                                                                                                  to relevant OSHA requirements,
                                                                                                                  including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L,
                                                                                                                  sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-25167 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P