[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42869-42959]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17066]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 138

July 20, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program;
Final Rule

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198; FRL-9926-55-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS18

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for
Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the status from acceptable to
unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits for a number of substitutes, pursuant to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Significant New Alternatives
Policy program. We make these changes based on information showing that
other substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk
overall to human health and the environment. Specifically, this action
changes the listing status for certain hydrofluorocarbons in various
end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam
blowing sectors. This action also changes the status from acceptable to
unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of
production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer and section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. All documents in the docket are listed in the
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed in the electronic
docket and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically or in
hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number (202)
343-2338, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Notices and
rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify the
listing status of an alternative?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this final action to modify prior SNAP determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for HFCs?
    A. Summary of Petitions
    B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and
Petitions
V. What is EPA's final action concerning the HFCs addressed in this
rule?
    A. Aerosols
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA finalizing concerning aerosols?
    (a) What other alternatives are available?
    (1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor Pressure Constraints
    (2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
    (b) When will the listings change?
    3. How is EPA responding to comments about this end-use?
    (a) Timeline
    (b) Sell-Through period
    (c) Use conditions
    (d) HFC Consumption and Climate Impact of Aerosols
    (e) Small Business Impacts
    (f) Imports
    B. MVAC Systems for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA finalizing regarding MVAC systems for newly
manufactured light-duty motor vehicles?
    (a) HFC-134a
    (b) Refrigerant Blends
    3. MVAC Servicing
    4. Would this action affect EPA's LD GHG Rule?
    5. How will the change of status apply to exports of MVAC
systems?
    (a) SNAP Interpretation
    (b) Narrowed Use Limit for MVAC
    6. How is EPA responding to comments concerning this end-use?
    (a) Timeline
    (b) Interaction With EPA's LD GHG Rule
    (c) Environmental Impacts
    (d) Cost Impacts of Rule
    (e) Servicing and Retrofits
    (f) Refrigerant Blends for Retrofits of MVAC Systems
    (g) Use Conditions for HFC-134a
    (h) Flexibility for Exports
    C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
    1. Background
    (a) Overview of SNAP End-Uses, End-Use Categories, and Commonly-
Used Refrigerants
    (b) Terms and Coverage
    (c) The Terms ``New'' and ``Retrofit'' and How They Apply to
Servicing
    2. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration
(supermarket systems)?
    (a) New Supermarket Systems
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (b) Retrofit Supermarket Systems
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (supermarket systems)?
    3. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (remote
condensing units)?
    (a) New Remote Condensing Units
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (b) Retrofit Remote Condensing Units
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (remote condensing units)?
    4. What is EPA finalizing for retail food refrigeration (stand-
alone equipment)?
    (a) New Stand-Alone Equipment
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (b) Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?

    (c) How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration (stand-alone equipment)?
    5. What is EPA finalizing for vending machines?
    (a) New Vending Machines
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (b) Retrofit Vending Machines
    (1) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (2) When will the status change?
    (c) How is EPA responding to comments on vending machines?
    6. General Comments on the Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending
Machine End-Uses
    (a) Specific Numerical Limits for GWP
    (b) Comments and Responses Concerning Small Businesses
    (c) Suggestion Regarding Education and Training
    7. Energy Efficiency Considerations
    D. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA finalizing for foam blowing agents?
    (a) What other alternatives does EPA find pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment?
    (b) When will the status change?
    (c) Military and Space- and Aeronautics-Related Applications
    (d) How will the requirements apply to exports and imports?
    3. How is EPA responding to comments concerning foam blowing
end-uses?
    (a) Timeline
    (b) Foam Blowing Agents Changing Status and Other Alternatives
    (c) Environmental and Energy Impacts of Foam Blowing Agents
    (d) Cost Impacts
VI. What is EPA finalizing for the HCFCs addressed in this rule?
    A. What did EPA propose for HCFCs and what is being finalized in
this rule?
    B. How is EPA responding to public comments concerning HCFCs?
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
    A. Authority
    1. General Authority
    2. Second Generation Substitutes
    3. GWP Considerations
    4. Takings
    5. Montreal Protocol/International
    6. Absence of Petitions
    7. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
    B. Cost and Economic Impacts of Proposed Status Changes
    1. Costs of Proposed Rule
    2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening
Analysis
    C. Environmental Effects of Proposed Status Changes
    1. General Comments
    2. EPA's Benefits Analysis
    3. Energy Efficiency
    4. The Climate Action Plan
    D. Potential Exemptions
    E. Interactions With Other Rules
    F. Other Comments
VIII. Additional Analyses
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
X. References

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA reviews
substitutes within a comparative risk framework. More specifically,
section 612 provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute
where EPA has determined that there are other available substitutes
that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment. Thus,
EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which
implements section 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives
but instead evolves the list as the EPA makes decisions informed by our
overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as
well as our current knowledge about available substitutes. In the more
than twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has
modified the SNAP lists many times, most often by expanding the list of
acceptable substitutes, but in some cases by prohibiting the use of
substitutes previously listed as acceptable. Where EPA is determining
whether to add a new substitute to the list, EPA compares the risk
posed by that new substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives
on the list and determines whether that specific new substitute poses
more risk than already-listed alternatives for the same use. As the
lists have expanded, EPA has not reviewed the lists in a broader manner
to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the
program pose more risk than substitutes that have more recently been
added. EPA is now beginning this process.
    Global warming potential (GWP) is one of several criteria EPA
considers in the overall evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP
program. The President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) states
that, ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will
lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic
actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states that EPA will ``use its
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting
certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.'' In our first
effort to take a broader look at the SNAP lists, we have focused on
those listed substitutes that have a high GWP relative to other
alternatives in specific end-uses. In determining whether to change the
status of these substitutes for particular end-uses, we performed a
full comparative risk analysis, based on our criteria for review, with
other available alternatives also listed as acceptable for these end-
uses.
    In an August 6, 2014, Federal Register Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (79 FR 46126), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) proposed to change the
status of certain substitutes \1\ that at that time were listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program. After reviewing public comments and
available information, in today's action, EPA is modifying the listings
from acceptable to unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions;
or acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits for certain
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in various end-uses in the
aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors
where other alternatives are available or potentially available that
pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Per the
guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does not specify
that any HFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses.
Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection between the
specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use and the
availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses. EPA is also
not specifying that, for any sector, the only acceptable substitutes
are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs,
hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons
(HCs)

and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes may pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment, depending on the particular
use. Instead, consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically
interpreted it under the SNAP program, EPA is making these
modifications based on our evaluation of the substitutes addressed in
this action using the SNAP criteria for evaluation and considering the
current suite of other available and potentially available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On that basis, EPA is modifying the following listings by sector
and end-use as of the dates indicated. EPA will continue to monitor the
development and deployment of other alternatives as well as their
uptake by industries affected by today's action. If EPA receives new
information indicating that other alternatives will not be available by
the change of status dates specified, EPA may propose further action to
adjust the relevant dates.
    (1) Aerosols
     EPA is listing HFC-125 as unacceptable for use as an
aerosol propellant as of January 1, 2016.
     EPA is listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of HFC-134a
and HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use as aerosol propellants as of July
20, 2016, except for those uses specifically listed as acceptable,
subject to use conditions.
     EPA is listing HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July 20, 2016,
for use in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).
     EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018, for the
following specific uses:
    [cir] products for which new formulations require federal
governmental review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or
space agency specifications, or FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and
    [cir] products for smoke detector functionality testing.
     EPA is listing HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for the following specific uses:
    [cir] cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils
from electrical equipment or electronics;
    [cir] refrigerant flushes;
    [cir] products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
    [cir] sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the
maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or
military equipment;
    [cir] duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under
electron microscopes or for use on energized electrical equipment;
    [cir] adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
    [cir] lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or
electronics;
    [cir] sprays for aircraft maintenance;
    [cir] pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in
total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants;
    [cir] mold release agents and mold cleaners;
    [cir] lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics;
    [cir] document preservation sprays;
    [cir] MDIs approved by the FDA for medical purposes;
    [cir] wound care sprays;
    [cir] topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
    [cir] products for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
    (2) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector; Motor vehicle air
conditioning (MVAC) systems for newly manufactured light-duty vehicles
    EPA is listing HFC-134a as unacceptable for newly manufactured
light-duty motor vehicles beginning in Model Year (MY) 2021 except as
allowed under a narrowed use limit for use in newly manufactured light-
duty vehicles destined for use in countries that do not have
infrastructure in place for servicing with other acceptable
refrigerants. This narrowed use limit will be in place through MY 2025.
Beginning in MY 2026, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for use in all
newly manufactured light-duty vehicles. EPA is also listing the use of
certain refrigerant blends as unacceptable in newly manufactured light-
duty motor vehicles starting with MY 2017.
    (3) Refrigeration and air conditioning sector; Retail food
refrigeration and vending machines
    EPA is listing a number of refrigerants as unacceptable in a number
of retail food refrigeration categories and in the vending machines
end-use, as follows:
     Retrofitted supermarket systems: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of July 20, 2016
     New supermarket systems: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January
1, 2017
     Retrofitted remote condensing units: R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of July 20,
2016
     New remote condensing units: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-
421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A as of January
1, 2018
     Retrofitted vending machines: R-404A and R-507A as of July
20, 2016
     New vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E as of January 1, 2019
     Retrofitted stand-alone retail food refrigeration
equipment: R-404A and R-507A as of July 20, 2016
     New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity below 2,200 Btu/hr and not containing a flooded evaporator:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44
(2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2019
     New stand-alone medium-temperature units with a compressor
capacity equal to or greater than 2,200 Btu/hr and stand-alone medium-
temperature units containing a flooded evaporator: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-
134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A,
R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B,
R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR-03 as of January 1, 2020
     New stand-alone low-temperature units: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C,
R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003
formulation) as of January 1, 2020
    We are also providing clarification on several questions identified
during the comment period. Specifically, we are providing clarification
of the terms we are using for the various end-use categories covered by
this rule, including ``supermarket systems,'' ``remote condensing
units,'' and ``stand-alone equipment.'' We are also providing
clarification on certain types of equipment that do not fall within the
categories and end-uses covered by this

rule, including blast chillers, certain ice makers, very-low
temperature refrigeration equipment, and equipment that dispenses
chilled beverage or food (e.g., soft-serve ice cream) via a nozzle.
Finally, we are also providing clarification regarding our use of the
terms ``new'' and ``retrofit'' and how those terms relate to service of
existing equipment.
    (4) Foams
    EPA is listing a number of foam blowing agents unacceptable in each
foams end-use excluding rigid PU spray foam, except as allowed under a
narrowed use limit for military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications. For military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications, we are changing the listing status to acceptable, subject
to a narrowed use limit, as of the status change date for the remainder
of each end-use (January 1 of 2017, 2019, 2020 or 2021) and then to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2022. We are not taking final action on
rigid PU spray foam at this time. The unacceptable listing for all
other end-uses is as follows:
     Rigid polyurethane (PU) appliance foam: HFC-134a, HFC-
245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as
of January 1, 2020
     Rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels:
HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and
Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020
     Rigid PU slabstock and other: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January
1, 2019
     Rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock: HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017
     Flexible PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; as of January 1, 2017
     Integral skin PU: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and
blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2017
     Polystyrene extruded sheet: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of
January 1, 2017
     Polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet (XPS): HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel
B, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2021
     Polyolefin: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends
thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January 1, 2020
     Phenolic insulation board and bunstock: HFC-143a, HFC-
134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends thereof; as of January 1, 2017
     Rigid PU marine flotation foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6, as of January
1, 2020
    While EPA proposed and requested comments on interpreting the SNAP
unacceptability determinations to apply to the import of foam products
that retain the blowing agents (i.e., closed cell foams), EPA is not
finalizing that change in this rulemaking.
    (5) Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
    As proposed, EPA is also modifying the listings for HCFC-141b,
HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances
in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion
protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These
modifications align the SNAP listings with other parts of the
stratospheric protection program, specifically section 605 and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610
and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. The
modified listings will apply 60 days following publication of this
final rule.
    (6) Overview of public comments
    EPA received over 7,500 comments on the proposed rule. EPA
requested and received comments on the proposed listing decisions as
well as the proposed change of status dates. As noted in response to
comments throughout this document, the decision on modifying each
listing is based on the SNAP program's comparative risk framework. This
includes information concerning whether there are alternatives
available with lower overall risk to human health and the environment
for the end-uses considered. As part of our consideration of the
availability of those alternatives, we considered all available
information, including information provided during the public comment
period, and information claimed as confidential and provided during
meetings, regarding technical challenges that may affect the time at
which the alternatives can be used safely and used consistent with
other requirements such as testing and code compliance obligations. We
grouped comments together and responded to the issues raised by the
comments in the sections that follow, or in a separate response to
comments document which is included in the docket for this rule (EPA,
2015a). This final rule reflects some changes to our proposal, based on
information and data received during the public comment period.
    The sections that follow describe EPA's final action for each of
the three sectors covered in this rulemaking--aerosols; foam blowing;
and refrigeration and air-conditioning, including commercial
refrigeration and motor vehicle air conditioning. For the end-uses
addressed within each sector we explain the change of status
determination and the dates when the change of status will apply. EPA
has updated documentation for this rule including market
characterizations, analyses of costs associated with sector
transitions, estimated benefits associated with the transition to other
alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 These documents are
available in the docket. EPA provided separate market characterizations
by sector for the proposed rule but is providing a single document
consolidating this information, and updated to reflect information
received during the public comment period, for this final action. The
emissions avoided from this final rule are estimated to be 26 to 31
million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq)
in 2020. The avoided emissions are estimated to be 54 to 64
MMTCO2eq in 2025 and 78 to 101 MMTCO2eq in 2030
(EPA, 2015b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols
Industry. May 2014.
    \3\ ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams
Industry. May 2014.
    \4\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S. Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. May 2014.
    \5\ ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. May 2014.
    \6\ ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options To Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives. June 2014.
    \7\ EPA, 2014a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule. June 2014.
    \8\ ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory
Options To Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June
2014.
    \9\ ICF, 2015a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S.
Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July
2015
    \10\ ICF, 2015b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives--
Revised. July 2015.
    \11\ EPA, 2015b. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule. July 2015.
    \12\ ICF, 2015c. Revised Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. July 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Potential entities that may be affected by this final rule include:

  Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
                   Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Description of
            Category               NAICS Code       regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          238220  Plumbing, Heating, and
                                                  Air Conditioning
                                                  Contractors.
Industry.......................          324191  Petroleum Lubricating
                                                  Oil and Grease
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325199  All Other Basic Organic
                                                  Chemical
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325412  Pharmaceutical
                                                  Preparation
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325510  Paint and Coating
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325612  Polishes and Other
                                                  Sanitation Goods.
Industry.......................          325620  Toilet Preparation
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          325998  All Other Miscellaneous
                                                  Chemical Product and
                                                  Preparation
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          326140  Polystyrene Foam
                                                  Product Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          326150  Urethane and Other Foam
                                                  Product (except
                                                  Polystyrene)
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          333415  Air Conditioning and
                                                  Warm Air Heating
                                                  Equipment and
                                                  Commercial and
                                                  Industrial
                                                  Refrigeration
                                                  Equipment
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          336211  Motor Vehicle Body
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts
                                                  Manufacturing.
Industry.......................          336611  Ship Building and
                                                  Repairing.
Industry.......................          336612  Boat Building.
Industry.......................          339113  Surgical Appliance and
                                                  Supplies
                                                  Manufacturing.
Retail.........................          423620  Household Appliances,
                                                  Electric Housewares,
                                                  and Consumer
                                                  Electronics Merchant
                                                  Wholesalers.
Retail.........................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment
                                                  and Supplies Merchant
                                                  Wholesalers.
Retail.........................           44511  Supermarkets and Other
                                                  Grocery (except
                                                  Convenience) Stores.
Retail.........................          445110  Supermarkets and Other
                                                  Grocery (except
                                                  Convenience) Stores.
Retail.........................          445120  Convenience Stores.
Retail.........................           44521  Meat Markets.
Retail.........................           44522  Fish and Seafood
                                                  Markets.
Retail.........................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable
                                                  Markets.
Retail.........................          445291  Baked Goods Stores.
Retail.........................          445292  Confectionary and Nut
                                                  Stores.
Retail.........................          445299  All Other Specialty
                                                  Food Stores.
Retail.........................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liquor
                                                  Stores.
Retail.........................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug
                                                  Stores.
Retail.........................           44711  Gasoline Stations with
                                                  Convenience Stores.
Retail.........................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and
                                                  Supercenters.
Retail.........................          452990  All Other General
                                                  Merchandise Stores.
Services.......................           72111  Hotels (except Casino
                                                  Hotels) and Motels.
Services.......................           72112  Casino Hotels.
Retail.........................           72241  Drinking Places
                                                  (Alcoholic Beverages).
Retail.........................          722513  Limited-Service
                                                  Restaurants.
Retail.........................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill
                                                  Buffets, and Buffets.
Retail.........................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic
                                                  Beverage Bars
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated
by this action. If you have any questions about whether this action
applies to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the above
section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

AAM--Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AGC--Asahi Glass Company
AHAM--Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHRI-- Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
The Alliance--Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
ARPI--Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CARB--California Air Resource Board
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFESA--Commercial Food Equipment Service Association
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRA--Congressional Review Act
CSPA--Consumer Specialty Products Association
DME--Dimethyl ether
DoD--United States Department of Defense
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct expansion
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--United States Food and Drug Administration
FM--Factory Mutual
FMI--Food Marketing Institute
FR--Federal Register
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
Global Automakers--Association of Global Automakers
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPAC--International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCCP-- Life Cycle Climate Performance
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas

MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MDI--Metered Dose Inhaler
Mexichem--Mexichem Fluor, Inc.
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalent
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2--Nitrogen
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAA--National Aerosol Association
NADA--National Automobile Dealers Association
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NAFEM--North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAM--National Association of Manufacturers
NAMA--National Automatic Merchandising Association
NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NMMA--National Marine Manufacturers Association
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
NRA--National Restaurant Association
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF--National Sanitation Foundation
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting Substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbons
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REACH--Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of
Chemicals
RfC--Reference Concentration
RRR--Recovery, Recycling and Recharging
RSC--Radiator Specialty Company
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SISNOSE--Significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TEWI--Total Equivalent Warming Impact
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TXV--Thermostatic Expansion Valve
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
XPS--Extruded Polystyrene Boardstock and Billet
XPSA--Extruded Polystyrene Association

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

    CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This program is known
as the SNAP program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II (HCFC)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable subject to use
conditions,'' and ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits''
substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.
3. Petition Process
    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-Day Notification
    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not
less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist
users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing
alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

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

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

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and
safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies
to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to
introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\13\ it

may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or
end users \14\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute
into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives
the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and
adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40
CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after
a complete submission has been provided to the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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.
    \14\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable, subject to use
conditions; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable.\15\ 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions
can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within
the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used.
Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used
only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found
to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the
rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
    \16\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other available
substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to
use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting
the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the
CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are
available for their specific application. EPA describes these
substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' A person
using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in
applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use
limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA
and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \17\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the
Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to acceptable commercially available
substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available
substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially
available '' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety,
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, EPA publishes ``notices of acceptability'' to notify
the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no
restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does
not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list
substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such
listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a
substitute.
    Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The
``further information'' classification does not necessarily include all
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While
the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA
encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the
``further information'' column in their use of these substitutes. In
many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating
practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or
building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted,
would not require the affected user to make significant changes in
existing operating practices.

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

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are
discussed below.
     Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone
depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well
as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
     Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found
acceptable
    Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
     Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse

    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few
substitutes for each end-use, and does not intend to do so unless a
substitute has been proposed or is being used that is clearly more
harmful to human health or the environment than other available or
potentially available alternatives.
     Evaluate risks by use
    Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
     Provide the regulated community with information as soon
as possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable,
acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain lists of
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
     Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies
    The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that
company's products.
     Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted
    In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes
that address 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 ozone depletion potential (ODP), GWP, toxicity, flammability,
and the potential for human exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
     Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the
potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The
SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year
integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects.
     Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure
assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which
workers, consumers, the general population, and the environment may be
exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are based
on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available.
Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases
including:
    (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
    (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;
    (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.
     Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to
assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to
substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as:
    (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure;
    (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic
effects on the general population;
    (3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the
general population.
    When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit values (TLVs)
set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to the general
population are not already established, then EPA derives these values
following the Agency's peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure information
is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis for concern.
Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-
based limits for interim use in these risk characterizations.
     Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a
safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability
risk using data on:
    (1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
flammability/combustibility classifications);
    (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
    (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by
independent laboratories; and
    (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
     Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also
examines other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and
local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged
to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes
are volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA also notes whenever a
potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant
(under CAA sections 112(b) and 202(l)) or hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations.
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other available
substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current
overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially
available

substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has
changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to
more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health
impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

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

G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify the listing
status of an alternative?

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any
substitute substance where it finds that there are other substitutes
currently or potentially available that reduce overall risk to human
health and the environment.
    The initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and
presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP
program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and
human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the
particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions
based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA
has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for
limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions.
    It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has
expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse
characteristics and varying effects on human health and the
environment. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes
available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited.
While the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of overall
risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often there
were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative assessment.
The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed
class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too
would be phased out and were only an interim solution. Other Title VI
provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the
section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under the SNAP
program could not convey permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 19 rules and 30 notices that generally expand the menu of
options for all SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today apply to a
broader range of options--both chemical and non-chemical--than was
available at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry experience
with these substitutes has also grown during the history of the
program. This varies by sector and by end-use.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of
substitutes in this rule includes comparative assessments that consider
our evolving understanding of a variety of factors, including climate
change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation
framework, but as is the case with all of our review criteria, the
amount and quality of information has expanded.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information and improved understanding of the
risk to the environment and human health. EPA previously has taken
several actions revising listing determinations from acceptable or
acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable based on information
made available to EPA after a listing was issued. For example, on
January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend known by the trade
name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and air conditioning
end-uses. EPA previously listed this blend as an acceptable substitute
in various end-uses within the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275). Based on new information about the
toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend, EPA subsequently removed
MT-31 from the list of acceptable substitutes and listed it as
unacceptable in all refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses
(January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861).
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007 when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are
ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
available substitutes that posed lower overall risk at the time of
EPA's listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors
and end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light
of the expanded availability of other substitutes with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS 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.

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

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP
program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial
SNAP rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR
part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the
appropriate citations are found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.

III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this final action to modify prior SNAP determinations?

    GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change
have become better understood.
    On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two
distinct findings regarding GHGs \18\ under section 202(a) of the CAA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The relevant scientific and technical information
summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or
Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Endangerment Finding: The current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere--CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6)--threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations.
     Cause or Contribute Finding: The combined emissions of
these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and welfare.
    Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\19\ Although they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact is very strong. The most commonly used
HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate
system than carbon dioxide. HFC emissions are projected to increase
substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades
if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are
increasing more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they
are increasing 10-15% annually.\20\ At that rate, emissions are
projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\21\ HFCs are rapidly
accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-
134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from
2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen
over 13% and 16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively.22 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New
York).
    \20\ UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.
    \21\ Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
    \22\ Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
    \23\ NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4
to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 2050,\24\ which is comparable to the drop
in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988
and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere
is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W
m-2. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-
quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the
buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the significance
of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all
GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2
emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions
scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based
on the IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.25 26
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Velders, G.J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland,
S.O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
    \25\ HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone
Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp
    \26\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for HFCs?

A. Summary of Petitions

    EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain
acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. These petitions
are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The first petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance
and Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation
Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from
the list of acceptable substitutes in multiple end-uses and move it to
the list of unacceptable substitutes in those end-uses. In support of
their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes that they
claimed were available for use in those end-uses and they claimed these
other substitutes present much lower risks to human health and
environment than HFC-134a.
    On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in
new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was
incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA noted in its response that,
at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment
rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition,
noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many
factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction
of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and
potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate
such substitutes.
    On April 26, 2012, EPA received a second petition submitted by EIA.
EIA stated that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP
program's evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable
substitutes are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should
remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable
substitutes for uses where EPA found chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of the Act. EIA also
requested that the schedule for moving HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends
from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes be based on the
``most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of the'' acceptable
substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that initial approvals
of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the 1990s and were
based

on the assessment made then that 1) HFC-134a does not contribute to
ozone depletion; 2) HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric lifetime were close
to those of other substitutes that had been determined to be acceptable
for the end-uses; and 3) HFC-134a is not flammable, and its toxicity is
low.\27\ The petitioner stated that the analysis used in the listing
decisions may have been appropriate in the 1990s but was no longer so
today given the range of other available or potentially available
substitutes at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition
was incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further
correspondence that can be found in the docket.
    A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and
IGSD. They requested that EPA:
     Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes
for CFC-12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers;
     Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all
except certified technicians with access to service tools required
under existing EPA regulations;
     Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of
transition from obsolete high-GWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives
and substitutes;
     Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other refrigerants
with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable list for
household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail food
refrigerators and freezers.
    On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA
and the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be
found in the docket.

B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and Petitions

    This action is consistent with a provision in the President's CAP
announced June 2013: Moving forward, the Environmental Protection
Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives
Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions
technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals
while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical
alternatives.
    The CAP further states: ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well
as domestic actions.'' This rule is also consistent with that call for
leadership through domestic actions. As regards international
leadership, for the past five years, the United States, Canada, and
Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase
down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the
amendment proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) through 2050.
    This action also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions
referred to above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the
three petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners' request
that EPA change the listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable
in new MVAC systems. (See section V.B.) Second, regarding the remaining
aspects of the three petitions, which EPA found to be incomplete, EPA
has independently acquired sufficient information to address certain
other requests made by the petitioners. EPA's action in this final rule
may be considered responsive to certain aspects of those petitions such
as: Changing the listing of certain HFCs used in specific aerosol uses
from acceptable to unacceptable or acceptable, subject to use
conditions; changing the listing of certain HFCs used in specific foams
end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses; changing the
listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers; and changing the listing of a
number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs from acceptable to
unacceptable for new and retrofit stand-alone retail food refrigerators
and freezers. Specifically, as explained in more detail in the sector-
specific sections of this document, we are revising the listings for
substitutes in the aerosols, foams, and refrigeration and air
conditioning sectors that pose significantly greater overall risk to
human health and the environment as compared with other available or
potentially available substitutes in the specified end-uses.
    Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated
community, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the
role that certainty plays in enabling the robust development and uptake
of alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP
program, such as its chemical and end-use specific consideration, its
multi-criteria basis for action, and its petition process, tend to
militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such
as setting specific numerical criteria for environmental evaluations
(e.g., all compounds with GWP greater than 150). That being said, we
believe that the action we are taking today, and future action we may
take, does provide additional certainty in the specific cases
addressed. In addition, we remain committed to continuing to actively
seek stakeholder views and to share our thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions, as part of our commitment to provide
greater certainty to producers and consumers in SNAP-regulated
industrial sectors.

V. What is EPA's final action concerning the HFCs addressed in this
rule?

A. Aerosols

1. Background
    The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses:
Propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or
compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder
form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants
off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient.
Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in
manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and
other soils.
    Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been
available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed
gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, and
compressed air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the
aerosol industry predominantly used CFCs. In 1978, in response to
evidence regarding depletion of the earth's ozone layer, the United
States banned CFC propellants, with few exceptions.
    Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were
reformulated or replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-
in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on
deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs,
compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. However, since the
1990s HCFCs have been controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol
and subject to regulation under the CAA, as amended in 1990, including
a phaseout of production and import under section 605(b)-(c) and use
restrictions under section 605(a).
2. What is EPA finalizing concerning aerosols?
    For aerosol propellants, EPA proposed to list, as of January 1,
2016:
     HFC-125 as unacceptable;

     HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g., MDIs) and
     HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in MDIs.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EPA did not explicitly state in our proposal whether blends
of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea would also be acceptable subject to use
conditions. However, in general in the SNAP program, blends of
acceptable aerosol propellants are also acceptable and do not
require separate approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action changes the status of HFC-125; HFC-227ea; blends of
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea; and HFC-134a, as follows:
     We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
125 from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016.
     We are changing the status of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and
blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea from acceptable to unacceptable for
use as aerosol propellants as of July 20, 2016 except for those uses
specifically listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
     We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
227ea and for blends of HFC-227ea and HFC-134a from acceptable to
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of July 20, 2016, for use in
MDIs approved by FDA.
     We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of
July 20, 2016, until January 1, 2018, for the following specific uses:
Products for which new formulations require federal governmental
review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military (U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD)) or space agency (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)) specifications, or FDA approval (aside
from MDIs); and products for smoke detector functionality testing.
     We are changing the status of the aerosol propellant HFC-
134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions as of
July 20, 2016, for the following specific uses: Cleaning products for
removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or
electronics; refrigerant flushes; products for sensitivity testing of
smoke detectors; lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment
or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance; sprays containing
corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft,
electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment; pesticides
for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold
release agents and mold cleaners; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for use
on removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips,
specimens under electron microscopes, and energized electrical
equipment; adhesives and sealants in large canisters; document
preservation sprays; MDIs approved by FDA for medical purposes,\29\
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products
for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Includes veterinary purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change of status determinations for aerosols are summarized in
the following table:

                                Table 2--Change of Status Decisions for Aerosols
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Uses that are acceptable,
              End-use                    Substitutes              Decision           subject to use conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propellants.......................  HFC-125..............  Unacceptable as of     None.
                                                            January 1, 2016.
Propellants.......................  HFC-134a.............  Unacceptable as of     From July 20, 2016 to January
                                                            July 20, 2016 except   1, 2018: Products for smoke
                                                            for uses listed as     detector functionality
                                                            acceptable, subject    testing; products for which
                                                            to use conditions.     new formulations require
                                                                                governmental review,
                                                                                including: EPA pesticide
                                                                                registration, military or
                                                                                space agency specifications,
                                                                                or FDA approval (other than
                                                                                MDIs).
                                                                                As of July 20, 2016: Cleaning
                                                                                products for removal of
                                                                                grease, flux and other soils
                                                                                from electrical equipment;
                                                                                refrigerant flushes; products
                                                                                for sensitivity testing of
                                                                                smoke detectors; lubricants
                                                                                and freeze sprays for
                                                                                electrical equipment or
                                                                                electronics; sprays for
                                                                                aircraft maintenance; sprays
                                                                                containing corrosion
                                                                                preventive compounds used in
                                                                                the maintenance of aircraft,
                                                                                electrical equipment or
                                                                                electronics, or military
                                                                                equipment; pesticides for use
                                                                                near electrical wires, in
                                                                                aircraft, in total release
                                                                                insecticide foggers, or in
                                                                                certified organic use
                                                                                pesticides for which EPA has
                                                                                specifically disallowed all
                                                                                other lower-GWP propellants;
                                                                                mold release agents and mold
                                                                                cleaners; lubricants and
                                                                                cleaners for spinnerettes for
                                                                                synthetic fabrics; duster
                                                                                sprays specifically for
                                                                                removal of dust from
                                                                                photographic negatives,
                                                                                semiconductor chips,
                                                                                specimens under electron
                                                                                microscopes, and energized
                                                                                electrical equipment;
                                                                                adhesives and sealants in
                                                                                large canisters; document
                                                                                preservation sprays; FDA-
                                                                                approved MDIs for medical
                                                                                purposes; wound care sprays;
                                                                                topical coolant sprays for
                                                                                pain relief; and products for
                                                                                removing bandage adhesives
                                                                                from skin.
Propellants.......................  HFC-227ea and blends   Unacceptable as of     As of July 20, 2016: FDA-
                                     of HFC-227ea and HFC-  July 20, 2016 except   approved MDIs for medical
                                     134a.                  for uses listed as     purposes.
                                                            acceptable, subject
                                                            to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) What other alternatives are available?
    EPA is changing the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, with some exceptions,
because, as discussed in more detail in this section, for the uses for
which we are listing these substitutes as unacceptable, alternatives
(i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or
potentially available that reduce the overall risk to human health and
the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants
include HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane,
CO2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In
addition, technological options include not-in-kind alternatives such
as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes,
and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124
compared with HFC-134a's GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea's GWP of 3,220 and
HFC-125's GWP of 3,500.\30\ All of these alternatives, both the ones
remaining acceptable and those for which we are changing the listing,
have an ODP of zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of
remaining below their respective exposure limits when used as aerosol
propellants. In addition to GWP, some of the other environmental and
health attributes that the SNAP program considers that differ for these
alternatives include impacts on local air quality and flammability. For
example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are VOC as well as being
flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are not excluded from
the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Thus,
these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation
that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states
and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone and
restrict their use under this action. HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea,
HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed gas CO2 are
exempted from the definition of VOC under these regulations and their
use is expected to have negligible impact on ground-level ozone levels.
As well as HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and CO2, compressed
N2 and not-in-kind alternatives are not VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ GWP values cited in this final rule are from the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP
is listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the
calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The aerosols industry is generally familiar with how to address
flammability risks. The aerosols industry has been using flammable
compounds, including flammable propellants, for decades, consistent
with OSHA requirements addressing flammability. There may be greater
flammability risks for some specific uses of aerosol products because
of their use in situations where there is a source of heat or
electrical energy that could cause a fire (e.g., use on energized
electrical equipment). Concerns with flammability occur more with
industrial products, often referred to as ``technical aerosols.'' For
further discussion on consumer aerosols, technical aerosols, and
medical aerosols, see the NPRM at 79 FR 46136 through 46138 (August 6,
2014).
    There are a number of alternatives with GWPs lower than the GWPs
for the substitutes that we are listing as unacceptable and that are
not defined as VOC for purposes of SIPs, including: HFC-152a with a GWP
of 124, HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6, and CO2 with a GWP of
1. CO2 and HFO-1234ze(E) are nonflammable under ambient
temperature conditions, while HFC-152a is flammable, but less so than
hydrocarbons or DME. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those
of the HFCs for which we are changing the listing (range of GWPs from
1,430 to 3,500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125).
(1) Aerosols With Flammability and Vapor Pressure Constraints
    Aerosols for industrial and commercial uses often require
nonflammability and in some cases, specific vapor pressure criteria.
For example, nonflammable aerosols are needed for use on energized
electrical circuits, where sparking can create a fire or explosion
hazard. Of the different alternatives that have previously been listed
as acceptable, the nonflammable options at room temperature include
HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E), compressed gases including
CO2 and N2, and not-in-kind products. At slightly
higher temperatures (30 [deg]C or 85 [deg]F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits
lower and higher flammability limits, and thus in theory could catch
fire under specific conditions of concentration and applied energy.
Some aerosol product formulators have expressed concern that the lower
vapor pressure of HFO-1234ze(E) and the significantly higher vapor
pressure of CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide
adequate performance in propelling the contents of a can for technical
aerosols or may exceed Department of Transportation pressure
requirements under elevated temperatures (ITW Polymers Sealants, 2014).
For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and
CO2 at 20 [deg]C are 422 kPa, 655 kPa, and 5,776 kPa,
respectively.
    Based on the information available today, EPA believes it cannot
list HFC-134a as unacceptable for all aerosol uses. Thus, we are
creating a use condition that would restrict use of HFC-134a to
specific uses for which alternatives are not currently or potentially
available.
    Both HFC-227ea and HFC-125 have significantly higher GWPs than HFC-
134a (HFC-227ea's GWP is 3220 and HFC-125's GWP is 3500) or other
substitutes that could be potentially used where flammability is a
concern, and there is not a significantly different level of risk based
on the other factors that we consider. Thus, EPA has determined that
HFC-227ea and HFC-125 pose significantly more risk than other available
substitutes and EPA is changing their listing from acceptable to
unacceptable in most uses where HFC-134a may be used to mitigate
flammability risks. We note that we are not aware of any use of HFC-
227ea or of HFC-125 in industrial aerosols to mitigate flammability
risks.
(2) Aerosols for Specific Medical Uses
    For medical aerosols, there are special needs to address safety and
toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a substitute to be available for
use in medical devices, the device using the substitute must first be
reviewed and approved by the FDA.
    FDA has approved medications for use in MDIs using HFC-134a, HFC-
227ea, and blends of these two HFCs as propellants. No medications have
been approved for use in MDIs using other propellants. Although some
dry powder inhalers that are not-in-kind substitutes are approved by
FDA, these alternatives do not work for some situations. Thus, we
cannot conclude that there are other alternatives available for use in
MDIs that pose lower risk than HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these
two. In addition, it is our understanding that because of differences
in the solubility of water in HFC-134a and HFC-227ea, there are some
medications that are sensitive to the presence of water for which only
HFC-227ea may be used in an MDI.
    For other medical uses, EPA is aware of medical aerosols that
currently are using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as
not-in-kind

alternatives for uses such as antifungals, calamine sprays, freeze
sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF, 2014a). However, EPA
does not have information that alternatives other than HFC-134a are
available and are approved by FDA as propellants in wound care sprays;
topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and products for removing
bandage adhesives from skin.
    The available substitutes for medical devices are limited to those
approved by FDA, and the available substitutes differ by the type of
product and medical conditions treated. For these reasons, we are
listing HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for specific uses for which
other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment are not currently or potentially available. The use
conditions limit use of HFC-227ea and blends of HFC-227ea and HFC-134a
to MDIs approved by FDA and limit use of HFC-134a to MDIs approved by
FDA and the other medical uses listed above.
    HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all
other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants
(HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3,220; HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430; HFO-
1234ze(E) has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO2 and
HFO-1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. We
are not aware of any medical or other aerosols currently using HFC-125,
or of any FDA approval for aerosols using HFC-125. For these reasons,
we have determined that there are other available substitutes that pose
lower overall risks to human health and the environment in this use and
we are changing the listing of HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable.
    For more information on the environmental and health properties of
the different aerosol substitutes, please see the proposed rule at 79
FR 46137-46138 and a technical support document that provides the
additional Federal Register citations (EPA, 2015d) in the docket.
(b) When will the listings change?
    On or after January 1, 2016, aerosol products may not be
manufactured with HFC-125 and on or after July 20, 2016, aerosol
products may not be manufactured with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea, or blends
thereof except for the specific uses allowed under the use conditions.
In addition, as of January 1, 2018, HFC-134a will be unacceptable for
certain uses, and aerosol products for those uses may not be
manufactured with HFC-134a as of that date:
     Products for which new formulations require U.S. federal
government review, including: EPA pesticide registration, military or
space agency specifications, and FDA approval (aside from MDIs); and
     products for functional testing of smoke detectors.
    In the case of HFC-125, EPA is unaware of any products using HFC-
125, and no public commenters mentioned the existence of such products
or requested a date other than the proposed date of January 1, 2016.
    We are setting July 20, 2016, as the date on which the status of
HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends thereof will change to unacceptable, or
to acceptable, subject to use conditions, for certain specific uses.
For those uses that would no longer be allowed as of July 20, 2016,
this timeframe will allow formulators and packagers of aerosols to make
the necessary changes. (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014a). A number of
formulators have already been testing, and in many cases introducing,
new formulations with alternatives that remain listed acceptable. This
timing will provide affected aerosol manufacturers and packagers
sufficient time to change and test formulations and, to the extent
necessary, to change the equipment in their factories.
    For two aerosol uses, continued use of HFC-134a will be allowed
under the use conditions until January 1, 2018. EPA is providing this
longer transition time for these two uses because of additional safety
precautions and approvals outside of the control of the aerosol
formulator that must be addressed before transitioning. The first
category is those that must undergo specific federal governmental
reviews: EPA pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, military or space agency
specifications, and FDA approval. The second category is aerosol
products for functional testing of smoke detectors, which have National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72 requirements adopted in building
codes. These types of aerosols must be tested not only for performance
but also reviewed by third parties for compliance with regulatory or
code requirements or military specifications. Given both the safety
implications of insufficient testing and the additional time required
for third-party testing and/or governmental approval that is not
required for other aerosol formulations, we have determined that
alternatives that reduce overall risk will not be available for these
uses until January 1, 2018.
    As of the change of status dates, products cannot be manufactured
with HFC-134a or HFC-227ea or blends thereof except for the aerosol
product types that are listed under the use conditions. Products
manufactured prior to the change of status date may still be sold,
imported, exported, and used by the end-user after that date. As
discussed below in the responses to comment, restricting use of
aerosols by the end-user, as well as restricting the sale of previously
manufactured aerosols, may disrupt the market and may not result in
environmental benefits.
3. How is EPA responding to comments about this end-use?
(a) Timeline
    Comment: EPA received comments from a number of commenters on the
status change date of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and HFC-125 as an aerosol
propellant. Members of the aerosol industry proposed alternate years
ranging from 2018 to 2021, always in reference to HFC-134a or to
``technical'' aerosols. Reasons provided for these dates included
aligning with the European Union's (EU) timeline of January 1, 2018; a
need for at least one to two more years to complete reformulation and
all testing required; and additional time of two to five years to
complete approval processes: e.g., Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
approvals to meet NFPA requirements, EPA pesticide registration or
testing for conformance with military specifications. Members of the
aerosol industry also suggested that January 1, 2016, is too soon to
transition away from HFC-134a because of the need for coordination with
other regulatory requirements, because of business considerations
including the timing of the need for budgeting for capital
expenditures, developing and implementing worker education, negotiating
contracts between aerosol formulators and retailers, and for technical
reasons such as stability issues with HFO-1234ze(E), one of the
alternatives that remains acceptable for use. NRDC and IGSD stated that
EPA must maintain its 2016 timeline for transition to ensure that
important climate reductions are realized.
    Response: In determining when alternatives that reduce overall risk
will be available for use, EPA considers technical constraints on the
use of other alternatives, including when other alternatives may be
used consistent with safety requirements. Unlike some end-uses, such as
some of the refrigeration end-uses, there are a much wider variety

of uses with a much broader range of considerations under the aerosol
propellant end-use. While there are exceptions, as we address in this
action, for most of these wide-ranging uses, we do not anticipate
significant hurdles to transitioning to alternatives. Based on
information provided by the manufacturer of HFO-1234ze(E), a number of
their customers have been able to develop and introduce aerosol
products using HFO-1234ze(E) in a matter of months rather than years.
Except in limited cases, as discussed below, commenters requesting a
longer transition period did not provide concrete support for why more
time for specific uses is needed, resting only on general statements
that time is needed for ``formulation'' and ``testing.'' Based on the
information available showing that manufacturers have been able to
transition relatively quickly, but also recognizing that there may be
some variation in the time needed for specific uses, we are
establishing a change of status date of July 20, 2016--roughly seven
months later than the proposed date of January 1, 2016. This will allow
approximately one year from the time this rule is issued in which
manufacturers should be able to address their generalized testing and
reformulation concerns. Also, HFC-134a remains acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for many uses, reducing the number of products for
which companies must reformulate, test, and transition to other
alternatives.
    For certain aerosol products using HFC-134a that must go through a
federal government or other third-party approval process for new
formulations, we are establishing a change of status date of January 1,
2018. These products include those needing EPA pesticide registration,
testing to U.S. military or space agency specifications, and FDA
approval (aside from MDIs). In addition, we are establishing a change
of status date of January 1, 2018, for a product that requires
extensive testing to NFPA standards, specifically for smoke detector
functional testing. Based on information received during the public
comment period, we have determined that for these specific uses,
alternatives that pose less risk are not available until these testing
and registration processes are complete.
    EPA disagrees that we should align the timelines in this rule with
the EU timelines. The EU regulations rely upon different authority than
the SNAP program, and reflect the European context. We believe it is
appropriate for EPA decisions to base timelines upon when alternatives
that reduce overall risk are available in the United States.
    Comment: National Aerosol Association (NAA), Radiator Specialty
Company (RSC), LPS Laboratories, Consumer Specialty Products
Association (CSPA), and Aeropres commented that there is currently no
industry consensus on the safe handling of HFO-1234ze(E) (and ``any
alternative products'') in aerosol plants. CSPA states that the CSPA
Aerosol Propellants Safety Manual will need to be updated to include
new propellants like HFO-1234ze(E), and that the consensus guidelines
will then be used to assure that fire and building codes are updated to
properly cover new propellants. The commenter also states that while
they seek consensus on updating their safety manual, companies are able
to proceed using the guidance provided by the supplier, but many CSPA
members prefer to await industry consensus standards. LPS Laboratories
comments that applicable codes need to be updated before other
alternatives can be used and suggests that a January 1, 2018, date for
listing HFC-134a as unacceptable is more appropriate.
    Response: In the absence of industry consensus guidance, a number
of aerosol formulators are already manufacturing products safely using
HFO-1234ze(E) relying upon safety guidelines developed by the chemical
producer. No commenters raised, and we are unaware of, any specific
safety concerns that are not addressed in this guidance issued by the
chemical producer. CSPA mentioned updating fire and building codes
using the consensus guidelines, but did not state how these are related
and also indicated that some companies have been able to move ahead
without updates to fire and building codes based upon the guidance. For
that reason, we do not believe there is a basis for determining that
HFO-1234ze(E) is not available for safe use until January 1, 2018, as
suggested by commenters.
(b) Sell-Through Period
    Comment: Honeywell stated that there should be a limited sell-
through period to prevent stranded inventories for aerosol products,
while avoiding delays in the transition to low-GWP substitutes. The
commenter suggested that EPA prohibit the sale, import and export of
aerosol products manufactured with unacceptable substitutes by no later
than January 1, 2017. The commenter also suggested that the sell-
through period should apply only to products that were manufactured
prior to January 1, 2016, and that have entered the distribution
channel.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that a
limited sell-through period would be sufficient. Based on past
experience with implementing a limited sell-through period for certain
kinds of aerosols containing CFCs and with implementing an unlimited
sell-through period for other aerosols, we found that a limited sell-
through can result in market disruption and can strand inventory.
Further, a limited sell-through period does not necessarily preclude
emissions of HFCs to the environment because while manufacturers and
distributors would need to dispose of stranded inventory, there is no
current requirement prohibiting venting of the contents to the
atmosphere (unlike for refrigeration or MVAC). In this rule, we allow
new cars or new stand-alone refrigeration equipment manufactured with
HFC-134a before the change of status date to be used and serviced after
the change of status date to avoid market disruption, creation of
stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for releasing refrigerant
to the environment; a closely analogous treatment for aerosols is to
allow manufacturers and distributors to sell and end users to use
aerosol products manufactured before the relevant change of status
date. Finally, because of the relatively short period from issuance of
EPA's final rule to the compliance date, we do not expect that there
will be a large accumulation of inventory. Accordingly, this rule
allows for an unlimited sell-through and use period for covered aerosol
products manufactured before the change of status date.
(c) Use Conditions
    Comment: Honeywell, the producer of HFO-1234ze(E), stated that
there are either commercially available products or shelf-ready
products that have not yet been commercialized that do not contain HFC-
134a for some of the uses for which EPA proposed to change the status
of HFC-134a, to acceptable, subject to use conditions, including
cleaning products for electronics, sprays for aircraft maintenance, and
dusters.
    Response: EPA agrees, and we note that the uses identified in the
use conditions encompass a variety of highly specific uses. While
products without one of these substitutes or a blend of these
substitutes might be used in one specific use, this does not hold true
for the entire range of uses in the use category. In particular, this
is the case for uses where flammability is of concern, such as for
electronics cleaning and specialty dusters that are used on high-
voltage equipment. In the future, additional testing may indicate that
other alternatives, such as HFO-1234ze(E), can be used safely even

under conditions where flammability is of concern, but the information
available to date is not currently sufficient. Thus, we agree with
other commenters from the aerosol industry, such as CSPA, that HFC-134a
continues to be necessary in specific uses where other alternatives
that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment are not
available.
    Comment: Arkema asked whether EPA is proposing that HFC-227ea
continue to be acceptable for MDIs because of ``the volumes or a record
of unique suitability for a particular purpose,'' when HFC-134a might
pose lower overall risk compared to HFC-227ea, since its GWP is less
than half that of HFC-227ea.
    Response: Arkema's comment seems to suggest that we should list
HFC-227ea as unacceptable for use in MDIs, because it has a higher GWP
than HFC-134a; we disagree. Although the GWP for HFC-227ea is
significantly higher than that for HFC-134a, our understanding is that
there are technical reasons why HFC-134a may not perform adequately as
a propellant in MDIs using certain kinds of medications. For example,
because some medications could react or degrade in the presence of
moisture, and water is much more soluble in HFC-134a than in HFC-227ea,
further technical work is needed to determine if HFC-134a is able to
serve as a propellant in all MDIs. Currently, it is our understanding
that for those types of medications, there are no alternatives to HFC-
227ea that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment.
    Comment: The International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC)
and Mexichem Fluor, Inc. (Mexichem) suggested using the same language
for the listing for MDIs for HFC-227ea as for HFC-134a. IPAC, Mexichem,
and King & Spaulding suggested revising the language to apply to a
wider group of medical uses, including the treatment of conditions or
diseases of other organs (for example diabetes) where aerosols can be
used for systemic delivery through the lung or nose, or that HFC-134a
and HFC-227ea should be allowed for any medical MDI that has been FDA-
approved regardless of disease condition treated. One of the commenters
also stated it should be made clear that blends of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea are also acceptable for such use.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that the lists of medical
conditions treated with MDIs should be consistent for HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea. Additionally, we agree that the language should more clearly
specify our intent, which is to cover all MDI uses for which FDA has
approved HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, or blends of these HFCs. This would
include the wider group of medical uses suggested by King & Spaulding,
including the treatment of conditions or diseases of other organs (for
example diabetes) where aerosols can be used for systemic delivery
through the lung or nose. It is our understanding that HFC-134a and
HFC-227ea are the only available alternatives for MDIs approved by FDA,
with dry powder inhalers as an additional possible not-in-kind
alternative in limited cases. Thus, we believe that there are no other
alternatives available or potentially available for all MDIs approved
by FDA that pose less risk overall to human health and the environment.
We have revised the wording of the regulatory listing decision to make
clear that the use condition for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, and blends of
HFC-134a and HFC-227ea applies to all MDIs approved by FDA.
    Comment: HSI (Fire & Safety Group, LLC), Honeywell, DuPont, and EIA
commented that there are available alternatives and there is sufficient
supply of these alternatives to support EPA's proposed change of status
decisions for the aerosol propellants end-use.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that, for the most part,
there is a sufficient supply of alternatives that will support a
transition away from the substitutes that we have concluded provide a
greater risk to human health and the environment. However, as discussed
in more detail above and in response to other comments, in some
specific cases we received information that demonstrates the existence
of technological challenges that support a later date for the change in
status. In those cases, we are providing a later date.
    Comment: Commenters in the aerosol industry commented on situations
where some alternatives other than HFC-134a are not effective or
feasible. NAA commented that if CO2 were feasible, it would
already be used. LPS Laboratories commented that formulators must
consider chemical compatibility with formulations; for example,
CO2 cannot be used with water-based formulations due to the
formation of carbonic acid. LPS Laboratories commented that nitrogen
has very limited uses due to its lack of solubility and the substantial
pressure drop that occurs as the product is used.
    Response: EPA recognizes that not all alternative propellants work
in every particular formulation. The commenters have described specific
situations where CO2 and nitrogen may not be appropriate
propellants. However, other alternatives are also listed as acceptable.
HFO-1234ze(E) and HFC-152a have some physical similarities with HFC-
134a and the commenters do not claim that these other alternatives are
not available.
    Comment: NRDC and IGSD urged the Agency to deny any requests in the
aerosols sector for additional exemptions.
    Response: EPA has considered the comments and information submitted
during the comment period and is adding a limited number of uses to the
use conditions that would allow continued use of HFC-134a, HFC-227ea,
or blends thereof for the reasons provided elsewhere in this preamble.
    Comment: Honeywell, NAA, and CSPA commented on the nonflammability
of HFO-1234ze(E). NAA indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) was found to be
nonflammable by a number of standard tests (e.g., ASTM E-681) and
aerosol flammability test methods (e.g., flame extension, enclosed
space ignition), as well as by a non-standard test including a test
that found no ignition up to temperatures greater than 900 [deg]F.
Honeywell commented that while it is accurate to say that HFO-1234ze(E)
may exhibit vapor flame limits at elevated temperatures, that is only
one of many properties that must be taken into consideration when
characterizing HFO-1234ze(E) and its usefulness in formulating
nonflammable aerosol products. This commenter also provided additional
information about other tests on the flammability of HFO-1234ze(E).
CSPA said that there is still some concern about the potential for
flammability at higher ambient temperatures, and that CSPA member
product marketers, formulators and manufacturers are working to assure
that specific products in various categories can be formulated,
manufactured and used safely and effectively.
    Response: Based on the information available to EPA at this time,
we agree that HFO-1234ze(E) is nonflammable in most situations that
aerosols will be used. However, we have not seen results of testing
that cover all of the types of products for which there are concerns
about the need for a nonflammable aerosol propellant, such as aerosol
products used on energized circuits or other electrical equipment. For
other uses, where we have evidence of product-specific testing on HFO-

1234ze(E) showing nonflammability (e.g., tire inflators), we have
concluded that the flammability risks of HFO-1234ze(E) are not a
significant concern.
    Comment: Several commenters discussed flammability concerns for
tire inflators, with some suggesting that they should be added as a use
for which HFC-134a is acceptable, subject to use conditions, others
suggesting a later change of status date, and others supporting the
proposal. NAA and RSC stated that due to past accidents traced to
flammability of tire inflators, it is necessary to test all aspects of
the inflators to ensure that there are no flammability issues with HFO-
1234ze(E). RSC and Honeywell commented on the specific testing required
to ensure that new tire inflators using HFO-1234ze(E) are nonflammable,
because of the possibility of ignition sources such as application of a
torch to the rim of the tire or sparking from metal tools contacting a
steel belt during tire repair. ITW Global Tire Repair commented that
previous Aerosol Tire Inflators were flammable and there were several
accidents in which tire repair professionals were injured when a spark
ignited the product. This commenter also stated that EPA should not
dismiss the need for a nonflammable product because other aspects of
motor vehicles are flammable; tires and wheels have not been designed
and engineered to contain flammable products, unlike many other
flammable products in motor vehicles. CSPA referred to a March, 1999
recall from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
recall for 32 million units of an aerosol tire inflator due to injuries
caused by the product's flammability. Mexichem comments HFO-1234ze(E)
requires further evaluation before implementation for emergency tire
inflators and sealers because of its flammability and uncertainty
regarding its compatibility with sealants. Honeywell, the manufacturer
of HFO-1234ze(E), commented that third-party testing of aerosol tire
inflators using HFO-1234ze(E) found them to be nonflammable.
    Response: We acknowledge that there have been reports of accidents
associated with use of flammable tire inflators in the past,