[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22809-22909]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08163]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 74

April 18, 2016

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9941-84-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS80

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to
list a number of substances as acceptable, subject to use conditions;
to list several substances as unacceptable; and to modify the listing
status for certain substances from acceptable to acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable. Specifically, this action
proposes to list as acceptable, subject to use restrictions, propane
and HFO-1234yf in the refrigeration and air conditioning, and 2-bromo-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene in the fire suppression and explosion
protection sectors; to list as unacceptable certain hydrocarbons and
hydrocarbon blends in specific end-uses in the refrigeration and air
conditioning sector; and to modify the listing status for certain high-
global warming potential alternatives for certain end-uses in the
refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire suppression
and explosion protection sectors. This action also proposes to exempt
propane in certain refrigeration end-uses from the Clean Air Act
section 608 prohibition on venting, release, or disposal on the basis
of current evidence that its venting, release, or disposal does not
pose a threat to the environment. In addition, this action proposes to
apply unacceptability determinations for foam-blowing agents to closed
cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are
manufactured or imported using these foam-blowing agents. This action
also proposes to clarify the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-
X[supreg]), which is currently listed as both acceptable and acceptable
subject to use conditions, by removing the listing as acceptable
subject to use conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2016. Any party
requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May
3, 2016. If a hearing is held, it will take place on or about May 18,
2016 in Washington, DC and further information will be provided on
EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify the
listing status of an alternative?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this proposed action?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for HFCs?
    A. Summary of Petitions
    B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and
Petitions
V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section
608?
    A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting,
release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes
under CAA section 608?
    B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, release, or
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?
    C. What did EPA recently propose regarding management of
refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 608?
VI. What is EPA proposing in this action?
    A. Retail Food Refrigeration and Stationary AC
    1. Proposed Listing of Propane as Acceptable, Subject to Use
Conditions, for Commercial Ice Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low
Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
    a. What are the affected end-uses?
    b. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-
uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    c. What are the proposed use conditions?
    d. What recommendations does EPA have for the safe use of
propane?
    e. When would the listing apply?
    f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    2. Proposed Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition
Under CAA Section 608 for the End-Uses in the Proposed New SNAP
Listing
    a. What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane
in the end-uses in this action would pose a threat to the
environment?
    b. What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane
in the end-uses in this action should be exempted from the venting
prohibition under CAA section 608?
    c. When would the exemption from the venting prohibition apply?
    d. What is the relationship between this proposed exemption
under CAA section 608 and other EPA rules?
    e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    3. Proposed Listing of New Refrigerants as Unacceptable

    a. Proposed Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants as
Unacceptable for Retrofits in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat
Pumps
    i. What is the affected end-use?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. When would the listings apply?
    v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    b. Proposed Listing of Propylene and R-443A as Unacceptable for
New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage
Warehouses, and Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
    i. What are the affected end-uses?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. When would the listings apply?
    v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    4. Proposed Changes in Listing Status
    a. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for
New Centrifugal Chillers
    i. What is the affected end-use?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and
human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA
proposing?
    v. When would the status change?
    vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    b. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for
New Positive Displacement Chillers
    i. What is the affected end-use?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and
human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA
proposing?
    v. When would the status change?
    vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    c. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for
New Cold Storage Warehouses
    i. What is the affected end-use?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. When would the status change?
    v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    e. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for
New Household Refrigerators and Freezers
    i. What is the affected end-use?
    ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to
other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    iv. When would the status change?
    v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
    1. Proposed Listing of HFO-1234yf as Acceptable, Subject to Use
Conditions, for Newly Manufactured MVAC Systems
    2. What is the affected end-use?
    3. How does HFO-1234yf compare to other refrigerants for these
MVAC applications with respect to SNAP criteria?
    4. What are the proposed use conditions?
    5. When would the listing apply?
    6. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    7. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    C. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents
for Rigid PU Spray Foam
    a. What is the affected end-use?
    b. Which foam blowing agents is EPA proposing to list as
unacceptable?
    c. How do the proposed unacceptable blowing agents compare to
other blowing agents for these applications with respect to SNAP
criteria?
    d. What narrowed use limits for military or space- and
aeronautics-related applications is EPA proposing?
    e. When would the status change?
    f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    2. Proposed Revision To Change of Status Date of Certain HFCs
and HFC Blends for Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
    a. What are the affected end-uses?
    b. Which foam blowing agents are affected?
    c. When would the status change?
    d. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    3. Proposed Change of Status for Methylene Chloride in Flexible
PU, Integral Skin PU, and Polyolefin Foams
    a. What are the affected end-uses?
    b. How does methylene chloride compare to other blowing agents
for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    c. When would the status change?
    d. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    4. Proposed Application of Listings to Foam Products
    a. What are the affected end-uses?
    b. How would this proposal change the treatment of foam products
under SNAP?
    c. How do other stratospheric ozone protection requirements
apply to foam products?
    d. How is EPA reexamining treatment of foam products under SNAP?
    e. When would use of closed cell foam products with unacceptable
blowing agents be unacceptable?
    f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
    1. Proposed Listing of 2-Bromo-3,3,3-Trifluoropropene (2-BTP) as
Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Total Flooding and
Streaming
    a. What are the affected end-uses?
    b. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these
end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria?
    c. What are the proposed use conditions?
    d. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptable,
subject to use conditions, listing for 2-BTP?
    e. When would the listing apply?
    f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    2. Proposed Change of Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons
    a. What is the affected end-use?
    b. Which fire suppressants is EPA proposing to list as
unacceptable?
    c. How do the proposed unacceptable fire suppressants compare to
other fire suppressants for this end-use with respect to SNAP
criteria?
    d. When would the status change?
    e. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and
other federal rules?
    f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    3. Proposed Removal of Powdered Aerosol D in Total Flooding From
the List of Substitutes Acceptable for Use Subject to Use Conditions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

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

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

    In the decades since ODS were first invented in the 1920s, American
consumers relied on products using ODS for diverse uses including
aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, solvent cleaning, and fire
protection. The agreement by governments to phase out production of ODS
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
led to inevitable questions about whether suitable alternatives could
be found in all cases, and in the larger sense, about how to limit
negative societal impacts from use of alternatives.
    Over the past twenty years, the SNAP program has played an
important role in assisting with a continuous smooth transition to
safer alternatives, by addressing in concrete and highly technical
terms, end-use by end-use, these myriad issues. From the first SNAP
framework rule published in 1994, which provided confidence and
certainty by identifying safer alternatives in key consumer and
industrial uses, the SNAP program has continued to ensure that
businesses and consumers have access to information about suitable
alternatives. The SNAP program works with many stakeholders,
domestically and abroad, to continuously evaluate and provide updates
on safer alternatives and new technologies. Thanks to these efforts and
the work of individuals, businesses, and organizations, the transitions
generally have been successful. Perhaps the best evidence of the
program's success has been the lack of fanfare with which so many
important consumer and industrial uses have moved to adopt safer SNAP-
listed alternatives. When reviewing a substitute, EPA compares the risk
posed by that substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives and
determines whether that specific substitute under review poses
significantly more risk than other alternatives for the same use. EPA
recently has begun to review the lists in a broader manner to determine
whether substitutes added to the lists early in the program pose
significantly more risk than substitutes that have more recently been
added. As with initial listing decisions, decisions to change the
status of an already listed alternative are based on applying our
comparative risk framework.
    Global warming potential (GWP) is one of several criteria EPA
considers in the overall evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP
program. The President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) \2\ states
that, ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will
lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic
actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states that EPA will ``use its
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting
certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.'' On July 20,
2015 (80 FR 42870), EPA issued a final regulation that was our first
effort to take a broader look at the SNAP lists, where we focused on
those listed substitutes that have a high GWP relative to other
alternatives in specific end-uses, while otherwise posing comparable
levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan. This
document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is proposing to list a number of substances as
acceptable, subject to use restrictions; to list several substances as
unacceptable; and to modify the listing status for certain substances
from acceptable to unacceptable. We performed a comparative risk
analysis, based on our criteria for review, with other alternatives for
the relevant end-uses. For particular substances, EPA found significant
potential differences in risk with respect to one or more specific
criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, or local air quality
concerns, while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk to those of
other alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA is also proposing that the
existing listing decisions for foam blowing agents apply to closed cell
foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See section
VI.C.4 for the details of this proposal. Additionally, EPA is proposing
to list propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a
refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines, in new water
coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration equipment. EPA
is proposing to exempt propane in these end-uses from the venting
prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.a, ``What
is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses
in this action would pose a threat to the environment?'' for the
details of this proposal.
    Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does
not specify that any alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across
all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the
intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-
use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses.
In the case of refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), we consider new
equipment to be a separate end-use from retrofitting existing equipment
with a different refrigerant from that for which the equipment was
originally designed. EPA is not setting a ``risk threshold'' for any
specific SNAP criterion, such that the only acceptable substitutes pose
risk

below a specified level of risk. Because the substitutes available and
the types of risk they may pose vary by sector and end-use and under
the SNAP comparative risk framework, our review focuses on the specific
end-use and the alternatives for that end-use, including the other
risks alternatives might pose. Thus, there is no bright line that can
be established. Also, EPA recognizes that there are a range of
substitutes with various uses that include both fluorinated (e.g.,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-
fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide (CO2))
substitutes that may pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment. Consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically
interpreted it under the SNAP program, EPA is proposing both initial
listings and certain modifications to the current lists based on our
evaluation of the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP
criteria for evaluation and considering the current suite of other
alternatives for the specific end-use at issue.
1. Proposed Acceptable Alternatives, With Use Conditions, by End-Use
(Initial Listings)
    (1) For refrigeration, we are proposing to list as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, as of 30 days after publication of a final
rule
     Propane in new commercial ice machines, new water coolers,
and new very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems, we are
proposing to list, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of 30
days after publication of a final rule
     HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured medium-duty passenger
vehicles (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks, and complete HD vans.
    (3) For fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, we are
proposing to list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of 30
days after publication of a final rule
     2-BTP as a total flooding agent for use in engine nacelles
and auxiliary power units (APUs) on aircraft; and
     2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld
extinguishers in aircraft.
2. Proposed Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Initial Listings)
    (1) For retrofit residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps--unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, we are proposing to
list as unacceptable, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule
     All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard
34-2013; and
     All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22,
Ecofreeeze EF-22a, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a,
Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
    (2) For new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps,
cold storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, and positive
displacement chillers, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of
30 days after publication of a final rule
     Propylene and R-443A.
3. Proposed Change of Listing Status by End-Use:
    (1) For new centrifugal chillers, we are proposing to list as
unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit,
as of January 1, 2024
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa,
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and
THR-03.
    (2) For new positive displacement chillers, we are proposing to
list as unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use
limit, as of January 1, 2024
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a
(28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03.
    (3) For new centrifugal chillers, we are proposing to list as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (4) For new positive displacement chillers, we are proposing to
list as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1,
2024
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (5) For new cold storage warehouses, we are proposing to list as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2023
     HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A,
and RS-44 (2003 composition).
    (6) For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment), we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as
of January 1, 2021
     HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).
    (7) For new household refrigerators and freezers, we are proposing
to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
    (8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high-pressure two-component spray
foam, we are proposing to list as unacceptable for all uses, except
military or space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January
1, 2020; as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or
space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; and
as unacceptable for military or space- and aeronautics-related
applications as of January 1, 2025
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) For rigid PU low-pressure two-component spray foam, we are
proposing to list as unacceptable for all uses, except military or
space- aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-
aeronautics-related applications,

as of January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for military or space-
aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2021, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (10) For rigid PU one-component foam sealants, we are proposing to
list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) For all foam blowing end-uses except for rigid PU spray foam,
we are proposing for all HFCs and HFC blends previously listed as
unacceptable for space- aeronautics-related applications as of January
1, 2022 that
     These HFCs and HFC blends would be unacceptable for space-
aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025.
    (12) For flexible PU foam applications, we are proposing to list as
unacceptable, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule
     Methylene chloride.
    (13) For integral skin PU foam applications, we are proposing to
list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2017
     Methylene chloride.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2017, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (14) For polyolefin foam applications, we are proposing to list as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020
     Methylene chloride.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (15) For fire suppression total flooding uses, we are proposing to
list as unacceptable, as of one year after publication of a final rule
     Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (C3F8 and
C4F10).
4. Other Changes
    (1) For all foam blowing end-uses, we are proposing to prohibit
     Use of closed cell foam products and products that contain
closed cell foam manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent
on or after the later of (1) one year after publication of a final rule
or (2) the date of the unacceptability listing.
    (2) For fire suppression and explosion protection total flooding
end-use, we are proposing to clarify the listing for Powdered Aerosol D
(Stat-X[supreg]), which is currently listed as both ``acceptable'' and
``acceptable subject to use conditions,'' by removing the listing as
``acceptable subject to use conditions,'' as of 30 days after
publication of a final rule.

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

  Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
                   Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Description of regulated
       Category           NAICS Code                entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction..........          238210  Alarm System (E.G., Fire,
                                         Burglar), Electric,
                                         Installation Only.
Industry..............          238220  Plumbing, Heating, And Air
                                         Conditioning Contractors.
Industry..............          325199  All Other Basic Organic Chemical
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325412  Pharmaceutical Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325998  All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
                                         Product and Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          326150  Urethane and Other Foam Product
                                         (Except Polystyrene)
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          332919  Nozzles, Firefighting,
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          333415  Manufacturers of Refrigerators,
                                         Freezers, and Other
                                         Refrigerating or Freezing
                                         Equipment, Electric or Other
                                         (NESOI); Heat Pumps Not
                                         Elsewhere Specified or
                                         Included; and Parts Thereof.
Industry..............          333415  Air Conditioning and Warm Air
                                         Heating Equipment and
                                         Commercial and Industrial
                                         Refrigeration Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          334290  Fire Detection and Alarm Systems
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          335222  Household Refrigerator and Home
                                         Freezer Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336120  Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336211  Motor Vehicle Body
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3364  Aerospace Product and Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336411  Aircraft Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336413  Other Aircraft Parts and
                                         Auxiliary Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336992  Military Armored Vehicle, Tank,
                                         and Tank Component
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          339113  Surgical Appliance and Supplies
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          339999  Fire Extinguishers, Portable,
                                         Manufacturing.
Retail................          423620  Household Appliances, Electric
                                         Housewares, and Consumer
                                         Electronics Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment and
                                         Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
Retail................          423930  Recyclable Material Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          443111  Appliance Stores: Household-
                                         Type.
Retail................           44511  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445110  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445120  Convenience Stores.
Retail................           44521  Meat Markets.
Retail................           44522  Fish and Seafood Markets.
Retail................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable Markets.
Retail................          445291  Baked Goods Stores.
Retail................          445292  Confectionary and Nut Stores.
Retail................          445299  All Other Specialty Food Stores.
Retail................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores.

Retail................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug Stores.
Retail................           44711  Gasoline Stations With
                                         Convenience Stores.
Retail................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and
                                         Supercenters.
Retail................          452990  All Other General Merchandise
                                         Stores.
Services..............           72111  Hotels (Except Casino Hotels)
                                         and Motels.
Services..............           72112  Casino Hotels.
Retail................           72241  Drinking Places (Alcoholic
                                         Beverages).
Retail................          722513  Limited-Service Restaurants.
Retail................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and
                                         Buffets.
Retail................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage
                                         Bars.
Services..............           81119  Other Automotive Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          811412  Appliance Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          922160  Fire Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
AC--Air Conditioning
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ACH--Changes Per Hour
ASRAC--Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
AEGL--Acute Emergency Guideline Limits
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
AIRAH--Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air conditioning and
Heating
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
APU--Auxiliary Power Unit
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
BTU--British Thermal Units
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CMAQ--Community Multiscale Air Quality
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CUAC--Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner
CUHP--Commercial Unitary Heat Pump
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct Expansion
EEAP--Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FCA--Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
FMEA--Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FR--Federal Register
FTA--Fault Tree Analysis
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GtCO2eq--Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
GWP--Global Warming Potential
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HBFC--Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HD--Heavy-Duty
HD GHG--Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
HF--Hydrogen Fluoride
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
HTOC--Halons Technical Options Committee
ICAO-- International Civil Aviation Organization
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IEC--International Electrochemical Commission
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
kPa--Kilopascal
LD--Light-Duty
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
LOAEL--Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
LPG--Liquified Petroleum Gas
MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MDPV--Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MIR--Maximum Incremental Reactivity
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent
MSDS--Material Safety Data Sheet
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NADA--National Automobile Dealers Association
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIK--Not-In-Kind
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NSF--National Sanitation Foundation
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting Substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbons
PMS--Pantone Matching System
ppb--Parts Per Billion
PPE--Personal Protective Equipment
ppm--Parts Per Million
PSM--Process Safety Management
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL--Recommended Exposure Limit
RfC--Reference Concentration
RMP--Risk Management Plan
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
RTOC--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee
SARPS--Standards and Recommended Practices
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SAP--Scientific Assessment Panel

SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
STEL--Short-term Exposure Limit
SUV--Sport Utility Vehicles
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

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

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

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

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors listed above must provide the Agency with notice and the
required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90
days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new
use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement
typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be
planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\8\ it
may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or
end users \9\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute
into interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once
EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes
complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP
regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier
than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
    \9\ 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.\10\ 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions
can be used for all applications within the relevant sector end-uses
and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that
are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in
accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be
unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking
adding them to the list of unacceptable substitutes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
    \11\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a class I or class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

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

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other substitutes. EPA
describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to use conditions.''
Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use
conditions are in violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP
regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute
subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable
substitutes are available for their specific application.\12\ EPA
describes these substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits.'' A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not
consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in
violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR
82.174(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA
established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a
limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available
for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but
acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time,
e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents
in military applications or after development of improved servicing
infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles
destined for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \13\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the
Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition to acceptable commercially available
alternatives, the SNAP program may consider potentially available
alternatives. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety,
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are
discussed below.
     Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone
depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential (ODP) as
well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
     Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found
acceptable
    Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
     Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse
    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but one substitute
for each end-use, and does not intend to restrict substitutes on the
market unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is
clearly more harmful to human health or the environment than other
alternatives.
     Evaluate risks by use
    Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
     Provide the regulated community with information as soon
as possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable;
acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits, in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain
lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site,
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
     Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies

    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 ODP, GWP, toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human
exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
     Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the
potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The
SNAP program considers the ODP and the 100-year integrated GWP of
compounds to assess atmospheric effects.
     Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure
assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which
workers, consumers, the general population, and the environment may be
exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are based
on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available.
Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases
including:
    (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
    (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;
    (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.
     Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to
assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to
substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as:
    (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure;
    (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for 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., ASHRAE flammability/
combustibility classifications);
    (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
    (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by
independent laboratories; and
    (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
     Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also
examines other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and
local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged
to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes
are volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA also notes whenever a
potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant
(under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations.
    EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to
evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to section
82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is distinct from consideration of costs
associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute
is being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of the
substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited
to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to whether
cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently or
potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus
precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of
whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec.  612(c) . . . .'').
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes, the
SNAP criteria continue to be informed by our current overall
understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about alternatives. Over time,
the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same
time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the
potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and
alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

    Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a
substance from either list. The second means is through the
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by CAA section 612(e) for

producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all
other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of
the Act to implement section 612(c).
    Finally, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have
interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or
unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or
remove a substance from the SNAP lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18,
1994). In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the
SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other alternatives that pose
lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining
whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same
consideration, but do so in the light of new data that may not have
been available at the time of our original listing decision, including
information on substitutes that were not included in our comparative
review at the time of our initial listing decision and new information
on substitutes previously reviewed.

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

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any
substitute substance where it finds that there are other alternatives
that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The
initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the
environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers
in the comparative risk framework it uses to determine whether there
are other alternatives that pose significantly lower risk than the
substitute under review. EPA makes decisions based on the particular
end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found
certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to
use restrictions.
    It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes
available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited.
Thus, while the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of
overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often
there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative
assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that EPA
listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they
too would be phased out and, at best, could offer an interim solution.
Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products
Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under
the SNAP program could not convey permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 20 rules and 30 notices that generally expand the menu of
options for the various SNAP sectors and end-uses. Thus, comparisons
today apply to a broader range of alternatives--both chemical and non-
chemical--than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry
experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of
the program.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of
substitutes in this proposed rule includes comparative assessments that
consider our evolving understanding of a variety of factors. For
example, GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our
evaluation framework, but as is the case with all of our review
criteria, the amount of information has expanded and the quality has
improved.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information, including new substitutes, and
improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health.
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to
unacceptable. On January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend
known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and
AC end-uses for which EPA had previously listed this blend as an
acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 3, 1997). EPA based this
decision on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals
in the blend.
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007, when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). These HCFCs, which are
ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
alternatives that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA's listing
decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at
a time when the number of substitutes was far more limited. In light of
the expanded availability of other alternatives with lower overall risk
to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phase-down step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date
that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their
manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other
substitutes.
    In a final rule published on July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), various
HFCs and HFC-containing blends that were previously listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program were listed as unacceptable in
various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and
AC sectors where there are other alternatives that pose lower overall
risk to human health and the environment for specific uses. The July
2015 rule also changed the status from acceptable to unacceptable for
certain HCFCs being phased out of production under the Montreal
Protocol and CAA section 605(a). Per the guiding principles of the SNAP
program, the July 2015 rule did not specify that any HFCs or HCFCs are
unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases,
EPA considered the intersection between the specific substitute and the
particular end-use and the availability of substitutes for those
particular end-uses when making its determinations.

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

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or
additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at 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 proposed action?

    GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change
have become better understood.
    On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued an
endangerment finding determining that, for purposes of CAA section
202(a), the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-
mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--threaten the public health and
welfare of current and future generations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is
accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\15\ Although they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact is very strong. While GHGs such as
CO2 and CH4 are unintentional byproducts from
industrial activities and mobile source emissions, HFCs are
intentionally produced chemicals.\16\ The most commonly used HFC is
HFC-134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system
than CO2. Because of their role in replacing ODS, both in
the United States and globally, and because of the increasing use of
refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are projected to increase
substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades
if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are
increasing more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they
are increasing 10-15 percent annually.\17\ At that rate, emissions are
projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\18\ HFCs are rapidly
accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-
134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10 percent per year
from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have
risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007-2011,
respectively.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New
York. This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
    \16\ HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct
during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals.
    \17\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \18\ Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
    \19\ Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is
accessible at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4
to 9.9 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2eq) in
2050,\20\ which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from
ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 and 2010.\21\ By 2050, the
buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radiative
forcing by up to 0.4 W m-\2\. This increase may be as much
as 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).\22\ To appreciate the significance of
the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs,
HFCs would be equivalent to five to 12 percent of the CO2
emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions
scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO2 emissions
based on the IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions
pathway.23 24 Additional information concerning the peer-
reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Today's notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) includes status change proposals for
certain HFCs or HFC blends in specific refrigeration and AC end-uses
and in rigid polyurethane spray foam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland,
S. O. Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
    \21\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \22\ Ibid.
    \23\ Ibid.
    \24\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA. This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PFCs are potent GHGs and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs
are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated
with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors, then
captured for intentional use or manufactured for use in various
industrial applications. PFCs have had limited use in the eight sectors
regulated under SNAP. This action includes status change proposals for
certain PFCs in fire suppression total flooding and streaming uses.

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

A. Summary of Petitions

    EPA recently received two petitions requesting EPA to modify
certain acceptability listings of high-GWP substances in various end-
uses. The petitions were both submitted on October 6, 2015. The first
was submitted by the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and the
Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD) and the
second by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA).25 26
Today's proposal is relevant to certain aspects of these petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs
under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives
Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015.
    \26\ EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain
high-GWP chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRDC and IGSD petition requests that EPA change the listing
status of certain high-GWP chemicals they believe are used most
frequently in the United States in various end-uses in the
refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion
protection sectors. The EIA petition requests that EPA list additional
high-GWP HFCs as unacceptable or acceptable, subject to use
restrictions, in a number of end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, and
fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. EIA requests that
the schedule for changing the status of the substances listed in their
petition be based on a three tiered approach: (1) January 1, 2017, or
one year following the passage of a final rule for SF6, HFC-
23, and HFC-23 blends R-508A and R-508B; (2) January 1, 2019, for all
chemicals with a GWP greater than 3,000 (e.g., includes HFC-236fa, HFC-
227ea, R-507A, and R-404A) in all remaining stationary refrigeration
end-uses; and (3) January 1, 2022, for all remaining substitutes with

GWPs higher than 1,000, including HFC-134a, R-410A. In support of their
petitions, the petitioners identified other alternatives they claimed
are available for use in the specified end-uses. NRDC and IGSD stated
that these other alternatives ``possess similar thermodynamic
characteristics'' and ``can achieve equal or greater energy efficiency
in hardware design'' compared to the substances they request the Agency
list as unacceptable. The petitions are available in the docket for
this rulemaking. While EPA has not found these petitions complete at
this time, today's proposal addresses certain aspects of the petitions
as described in section I.A and further discussed below.
    Parts of two other previously submitted SNAP petitions that EPA
found to be incomplete are also relevant to this rulemaking. In a
petition EIA submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated that, ``in
light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program's evaluation of
substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the
market or soon to be available,'' EPA should ``remove HFC-134a and HFC-
134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for any ozone
depleting substance in any non-essential uses under EPA's SNAP
program.'' Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April
27, 2012, requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of
acceptable substitutes in household refrigerators and freezers, and
stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers, among other things.
On August 7, 2013, EPA found both petitions to be incomplete.

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

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

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

    The CAP further states: ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well
as domestic actions.'' This proposed rule is also consistent with that
call for leadership through domestic actions. As regards international
leadership, for the past six years, the United States, Canada, and
Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase
down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the
amendment proposal are estimated to yield significant reductions in
emissions of over 90 GtCO2eq through 2050.
    This action also addresses certain aspects of the various petitions
referred to above in section IV.A. While the two recent petitions have
not been found complete and earlier petitions have been found
incomplete, EPA possesses sufficient information to propose action on
some of the end-uses covered by the petitions. EPA's action is
responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the
refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion
protection sectors; EPA is proposing to change the listing from
acceptable to unacceptable for:
     HFC-134a in new centrifugal chillers, new positive
displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and
rigid PU spray foam;
     R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R-507A in new centrifugal
chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household
refrigerators and freezers, and new cold storage warehouses;
     R-407A in new cold storage warehouses;
     R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, and R-434A in new
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-227ea in new cold storage warehouses, new centrifugal
chillers, and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-227ea in rigid PU spray
foam;
     HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new centrifugal chillers and
new positive displacement chillers;
     PFCs (i.e., C3F8 and
C4F10,) for total flooding applications; and
     a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs in certain
new refrigeration and AC equipment.
    EPA is also requesting comment and updated information on total
flooding uses of SF6 HFC-23, and HFC-125, and on both total
flooding and streaming uses of HFC-227ea.
    Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated
community, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the
role that certainty plays in enabling the robust development and uptake
of alternatives. As noted above, some of the key strengths of the SNAP
program, such as its substance and end-use specific consideration, its
multi-criteria basis for action, and its petition process, tend to
militate against measures some have advocated could provide more
certainty, such as setting specific numerical criteria for
environmental evaluations (e.g., all compounds with GWP greater than
150). That said, we believe that the action we are taking today does
provide additional certainty in the specific cases addressed. In
addition, we remain committed to continuing to actively seek
stakeholder views and to share our thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions, as part of our commitment to provide
greater certainty to producers and consumers in SNAP-regulated
industrial sectors.

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

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

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

environment. Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate
regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this prohibition on
venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances and
their refrigerant substitutes, which we refer to as the ``venting
prohibition'' in this action. EPA's authority under section 608(c)
includes authority to implement section 608(c)(2) by exempting certain
substitutes for class I or class II substances from the venting
prohibition when the Administrator determines that such venting,
release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment.

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

    Regulations promulgated under CAA section 608, published on May 14,
1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting
refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance of
refrigeration and AC appliances. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also
promulgated regulations implementing the section 608(c) prohibition on
knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II
controlled substances. These regulations were designed to substantially
reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946) and a
second rule on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) clarifying how the venting
prohibition in section 608(c) applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC
refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and PFCs) during the maintenance, service,
repair, or disposal of appliances. These regulations are codified at 40
CFR part 82, subpart F. In relevant part, they provide that no person
maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may
knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any
refrigerant or substitute from such appliances, with the exception of
the certain specified substitutes in the specified end-uses, as
provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a).
    As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant
substitutes, EPA has not promulgated regulations requiring
certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for
use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 2005). The Agency
has recently proposed, but not yet finalized, regulations to address
certification of such equipment used to recover and/or recycle
refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition (80 FR
69458; November 9, 2015). However, as EPA has noted, the lack of a
current regulatory provision should not be considered as an exemption
from the venting prohibition for substitutes that are not expressly
exempted in Sec.  82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478). EPA has also noted
that, in accordance with section 608(c) of the Act, the regulatory
prohibition at Sec.  82.154(a) reflects the statutory references to de
minimis releases of substitutes as they pertain to good faith attempts
to recover and recycle or safely dispose of non-exempted substitutes
but does not provide clear guidance about what constitutes such a
``good faith attempt'' for substitutes. (80 FR 69470).
    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA exempted from the venting
prohibition three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses: Isobutane and R-
441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers,
and combination refrigerators and freezers; and propane as a
refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers
(stand-alone units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453),
EPA exempted from the venting prohibition four HC refrigerant
substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the
specified end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A, in retail food refrigerators
and freezers (stand-alone units only); propane in household
refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers;
ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment
for non-mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, propane, and isobutane in
vending machines; and propane and R-441A in self-contained room air
conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps.
Those regulatory exemptions do not apply to blends of HCs with other
refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC.
    In those actions, EPA determined that for the purposes of CAA
section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of such HC
refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose a
threat to the environment, considering both the inherent
characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in
the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other
authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant
substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of
those HC refrigerant substitutes.

C. What did EPA recently propose regarding management of refrigerant
substitutes under CAA section 608?

    In addition to the prohibition on knowingly releasing ozone-
depleting and substitute refrigerants during the maintenance, service,
repair, and disposal of appliances, the existing regulations
established under CAA section 608 require that persons servicing or
disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe
certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting
refrigerant. The current regulatory provisions only apply to ozone-
depleting refrigerants and appliances containing ozone-depleting
refrigerants. The current requirements include: Requiring that
technicians be certified to work on appliances; restricting the sale of
refrigerant to certified technicians; specifying the proper evacuation
levels before opening up an appliance; requiring the use of certified
refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment; requiring the
maintenance and repair of appliances that meet certain size and leak
rate thresholds; requiring that refrigerants be removed from appliances
prior to disposal; requiring that air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to
facilitate refrigerant recovery; requiring that refrigerant reclaimers
be certified in order to reclaim and sell used refrigerant; and
establishing standards for technician certification programs, recovery
equipment, and quality of reclaimed refrigerant.
    On November 9, 2015 (80 FR 69457), EPA proposed to update these
existing requirements found in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F that currently
apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants and then to generally extend
those requirements, as appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute
refrigerants, including but not limited to HFCs and PFCs. However, as
proposed, the rule requirements would not extend to substitute
refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition. This
proposed rule would also streamline the regulations at 40 CFR part 82,
subpart F to improve clarity. For more information on this proposed
rule, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453.

VI. What is EPA proposing in this action?

    EPA is proposing to list certain newly submitted alternatives as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, and other newly submitted
alternatives as unacceptable. EPA is also proposing to modify the
listings from acceptable to

acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable for
certain alternatives in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC,
foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. In
each instance where EPA is proposing to list a newly submitted
substitute as unacceptable or is changing the status of a substitute
from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has determined that there are
other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the
environment. EPA is also proposing that the existing listing decisions
for foam blowing agents apply to closed cell foam products and products
containing closed cell foam. See section VI.C.3 for the details of this
proposal. The emissions that would be avoided from the proposed changes
of status in this action are estimated to be approximately 5.5 to 6.6
MMTCO2eq in 2025 and approximately 9.8 to 11.3
MMTCO2eq in 2030.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ EPA, 2016. Draft Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program
Status Change Rule. February, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In each listing decision, EPA is considering the intersection
between the specific alternative and the particular end-use, per the
guiding principles stated above. This action does not propose that any
specific alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across all sectors
and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector,
the only acceptable substitutes are non-fluorinated. EPA recognizes
that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non-fluorinated (e.g.,
HCs, CO2) substitutes may pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment, depending on the particular use.

Change of Listing Status

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

Change of Status Dates

    Here, as in the July 20, 2015, final rule, the proposed change of
status dates are based upon EPA's understanding of the availability of
alternatives, considering factors such as commercial availability and
supply of alternatives, time required to work through technical
challenges with using alternatives, and time required to meet other
federal regulatory requirements with redesigned equipment or
formulations.

Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    Under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition
when a substitute is found unacceptable. EPA requires information on
cost and availability of substitutes as part of SNAP submissions in
order to judge how widely a substitute might be used, and therefore,
what its potential environmental and health effects might be. The SNAP
criteria do not identify other cost considerations and thus we have not
historically used cost information independent of environmental and
health effects to determine the acceptability of substitutes under
review--that is, we have never determined a substitute under review to
be unacceptable or acceptable on the basis of its cost. When
considering a change of status for substitutes already listed as
acceptable, the SNAP program has not considered the costs of transition
away from HFCs, HFC blends, PFCs, and other alternatives affected by
the changes of status as part of determining the status of the
substitute or the availability of other alternatives for the same uses.
    We are not addressing in this rulemaking whether to revise the
regulatory criteria to include an expanded role for the consideration
of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applied the existing
regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status
of the substitutes addressed in this action.
    Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the costs of the proposed changes
of status in this action in order to provide information to the public
and to meet various statutory and executive order requirements. We have
estimated costs \28\ for applicable NAICS codes in a document titled,
``Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing
Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.'' \29\ Total annualized
compliance costs across affected small businesses are estimated at
approximately $11.8-$14.4 million at a 7% discount rate, or $11.5-$14.0
million at a 3% discount rate. The screening analysis finds that the
rulemaking can be presumed to have no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) for the following
reasons: roughly 89 small businesses could be subject to the
rulemaking, although roughly 76% of small businesses subject to this
rulemaking would be expected to incur compliance costs that are
estimated to be less than one percent of annual sales; and this
analysis indicates that up to 21 of the 89 affected small businesses--
or roughly 24%--could incur costs in excess of 1% of annual sales, and
that up to 12 small businesses could incur costs in excess of three
percent of annual sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Using a 7% discount rate, total annualized compliance costs
across the roughly 100 affected businesses are estimated to range
from $59.2 million-$71.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, total
annualized compliance costs are estimated to range from $58.8
million-$70.6 million. In terms of the percentage of the estimated
total annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air
conditioning is about 97-98%, foams is about 2-3% and fire
suppression is about 0%.
    \29\ ICF, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses
in a document titled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
\30\ These analyses are available in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect
this proposed rule to have major economic impacts (greater than $100
million per year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, if it is finalized as proposed. In addition,
we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses in a document
titled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to
the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.\31\ Based upon these
analyses, EPA does not

expect this proposed rule to have major economic impacts (greater than
$100 million per year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, if it is finalized as proposed. As noted,
EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to
evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to Sec.
82.180(a)(7)(vii). However, for purposes of ensuring that the cost
analysis EPA prepared for purposes of providing information to the
public and complying with statutory and executive order requirements is
as accurate as possible, EPA requests comment on the preliminary cost
analysis and the economic impact screening analysis for purposes of
updating the analysis. These analyses are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression.
    \31\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression end-
uses that would be affected by this proposed rule were not affected by
the changes of status promulgated in the July 20, 2015, final rule. For
the foams sector, the rigid PU spray foam end-use was not affected by
the changes of status in the July 20, 2015, final rule. For some other
foam end uses, we changed the status in the July 20, 2015, final rule
with respect to use of the blowing agent and are now proposing to
change the status with respect to use of closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam that are manufactured or imported
using these foam-blowing agents.

Narrowed Use Limits

    EPA notes that it may be reasonable for several of the end-uses to
be broken down further. Consistent with previous practice and as EPA is
proposing in certain instances in this proposal, EPA could consider
adopting narrowed use limits. We could also consider adopting temporary
narrowed use limits for a specific application within an end-use if the
Agency determined that substitutes would be available for all but that
specific application as of a particular date. In that case, for
applications in that end-use not covered by the narrowed use limit, the
proposed rule would list the substitute as unacceptable as of that
date. For the specific application at issue, the proposed rule could
contain both a temporary narrowed use limit with an expiration date and
a listing as unacceptable upon the expiration of the narrowed use
limit. Any end user within the covered application would need to comply
with the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other
alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use
in order to use the substitute identified in the narrowed use limit.

Requests for Comment

    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, including
proposed decisions to list additional substitutes as acceptable in
certain end uses, to list new substitutes as unacceptable in certain
end uses and to change the listing status of certain substitutes from
acceptable to unacceptable, subject to narrowed use limits or
unacceptable, and the dates when the change of status would apply to
users of these substitutes. EPA is particularly interested in
information concerning whether the supply of substitutes is sufficient
to meet the dates proposed in this action or whether there are
technical challenges in meeting a proposed change of status date. EPA
is also interested in whether EPA should adopt a temporary narrowed use
limit for a specific application of an end-use in the final rule. In
such a case, the commenter should explain why other alternatives would
not be available for the specific application of that end-use and for
what period of time. EPA is also requesting comments on the
determination that the SNAP listing decisions for foam blowing agents
would apply to closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foam that are manufactured or imported after one year after
publication of a final rule. In addition, EPA is requesting comments on
its proposed decision regarding the venting prohibition under section
608. More specific requests for comment are included with the
discussion of each of the proposed decisions.

A. Retail Food Refrigeration and Stationary AC

1. Proposed Listing of Propane as Acceptable, Subject to Use
Conditions, for Commercial Ice Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low
Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
    EPA is proposing to list propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject to
use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice
machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature
refrigeration equipment. The proposed use conditions include conditions
requiring conformity with industry standards, limits on charge size,
and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment. The use
conditions are detailed below in section VI.A.1.c, ``What are the
proposed use conditions?''
a. What are the affected end-uses?
    Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments to
produce ice for consumer use, such as in hotels, restaurants, and
convenience stores. Many commercial ice machines are self-contained
units, while some have the condenser separated from the portion of the
machine making the ice and have refrigerant lines running between the
two. The proposed listing applies only to self-contained commercial ice
machines.
    Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for
drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water.
    Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to
maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of
food--generally, -80 [deg]C (-170 [deg]F) or lower. In some cases, very
low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a refrigeration system
with two refrigerant loops containing different refrigerants or with a
direct expansion (DX) refrigeration loop coupled with an alternative
refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling cycle).
b. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
    The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when
evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP;
local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog
formation from emissions of VOC; ecosystem effects, particularly from
negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental and
health risks (e.g., flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are discussed
below. In addition, a technical support document \32\ that provides the
Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria (e.g.,
ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in
the relevant end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses
Considered in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Environmental Impacts
    The ODP is the ratio of the impact on stratospheric ozone of a
substance compared to the impact of an identical mass of CFC-11. Thus,
the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be one. Other ODS have ODPs that range
from 0.01 to 10.0.

    Propane has an ODP of zero.\33\ The most commonly used substitutes
in the commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature
refrigeration end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., R-404A and R-
134a). Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such as R-
401A, R-403B, R-414A and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-
142b,\34\ have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an
ODP lower than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these
end-uses.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine,
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
    \34\ Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to
service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b
and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to
manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to
charge new appliances assembled onsite.
    \35\ Propane's ODP is also lower than the ODP of the ozone
depleting substances historically used in these end-uses: CFC-12
(ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1 (ODP = 10) and R-502 (ODP
= 0.334).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate
forcing of various greenhouse gases relative to a value of one for
CO2. Propane has a relatively low integrated GWP of
three.\36\ For comparison, some other commonly used acceptable
refrigerants in these end-uses are R-134a and R-404A, with GWPs of
about 1,430 and 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the GWPs for
acceptable refrigerants in commercial ice machines ranges from zero for
ammonia vapor compression, ammonia absorption, and the not-in-kind
Stirling cycle technology to approximately 3,990 for R-507A, while for
water coolers, acceptable substitutes have GWPs ranging from 31 for
THR-02 to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.\37\ In very low temperature
refrigeration, a common refrigerant is R-508B, with a GWP of 13,400,
while the recently listed refrigerant ethane has a GWP of approximately
six and CO2 has a GWP of one; the GWPs for substitutes in
this end-use range from one for CO2 to 14,800 for HFC-23.
Propane's GWP is comparable to or significantly lower than those of
other alternatives in these end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are
100-year integrated time horizon values taken from IPCC, 2007.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
    \37\ The GWPs of the ozone-depleting substances historically
used in these end-uses are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP =
1,810); R-13B1/halon 1301 (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).

   Table 2--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propane Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Commercial Ice Machines,
                      Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Refrigerants                   GWP             ODP                VOC                  Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane...........................               3               0  Yes..................  Acceptable, subject
                                                                                to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Commercial Ice Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A,         0-3,990               0  No...................  No change.
 R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-
 410B, R-421A, R-421B, R-424A, R-
 426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-449A, R-
 450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC         30-3,610         0-0.009  Yes \3\..............  No change.
 Blend Beta), IKON A, IKON B, R-
 125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/
 42.5/1.5), 417A, R-422A, R-422B,
 R-422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A, R-
 438A, RS-24 (2002 formulation),
 RS-44 (2003 formulation), THR-02,
 THR-03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Water Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C,          0-3,990               0  No...................  No change.
 R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-
 426A, R-437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-
 513A.
FOR12A, FOR-12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC        30-3,090         0-0.009  Yes \3\..............  No change.
 Blend Beta), IKON B, R-125/R-290/
 R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/
 1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
 438A, RS-24 (2002 formulation),
 SP34E, THR-02, THR-04.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-7000,         1-14,800               0  No...................  No change.
 HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-170
 (ethane), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A,
 R-410B, R-507A, R-508A, R-508B.
ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-       2,530-8,500               0   Yes \3\.............  No change.
 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B,
 R-422C, PFC-1102HC, PFC-662HC,
 PFC-552HC, and FLC-15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOC.

    The overall GHG effects of these refrigerants in various end-uses
depend upon the design of the appliances, since the ``indirect'' GHG
emissions associated with electricity consumption typically exceed the
GHG emissions from the refrigerants over the full lifecycle of
refrigerant-containing products.\38\ These indirect emissions

occur from combustion of fossil fuel at power plants in order to supply
electric power for operation of the refrigeration equipment. We do not
have a practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in
the overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as
technical needs for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet Department of
Energy (DOE) conservation standards) in determining whether
alternatives are ``available.'' We recognize that the energy efficiency
of any given piece of equipment is in part affected by the choice of
refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic and thermophysical
properties that refrigerant possesses, as well as other factors. For
example, appliances that are optimized for a specific refrigerant will
operate more efficiently. While theoretical efficiency of any given
Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant used, the
refrigerant, the design of the equipment, and other factors will affect
the actual energy efficiency achieved in operation. Although we cannot
know what energy efficiency will be achieved in future products using
propane, or any other specific acceptable refrigerant, we can point to
both actual equipment and testing results that suggest that equipment
optimized for propane may improve energy efficiency, and is unlikely to
negatively impact it.39 40 41 Further, testing data, peer-
reviewed journal articles and other information provided by the
submitters for propane in the proposed end-uses indicate that equipment
using propane is likely to require a smaller refrigerant charge, to
have a higher coefficient of performance, and to use less energy than
equipment currently being manufactured that uses other refrigerants
that currently are listed as acceptable under SNAP in these end-uses.
Also see section VI.A.1.f below concerning the role of the DOE energy
conservation standards in ensuring that overall energy efficiency of
equipment will be maintained or improved over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This
document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
    \39\ Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-
290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
    \40\ Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013.
EPA SNAP Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice
Machines, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
    \41\ Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water
Coolers. October, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to global impacts on the atmosphere, EPA evaluated
potential impacts of propane and other HC refrigerants on local air
quality. Propane is a VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to
attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Potential emissions of VOC from all substitutes for all end-uses in the
refrigeration and AC sector are addressed by the venting prohibition
under CAA section 608. Under that prohibition, refrigerant substitutes
(and thus the VOC they contain) may only be emitted where EPA issues a
final determination exempting a refrigerant substitute from the venting
prohibition on the basis that venting, releasing or disposing of such
substance does not pose a threat to the environment, as proposed
elsewhere in this action (see section VI.A.2.a, ``What is EPA's
proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses in this
action would pose a threat to the environment?'' below). EPA estimates
that potential emissions of HCs, including propane, when used as
refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC
sector, have little impact on local air quality, with the exception of
unsaturated HCs such as propylene.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential
impacts on local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely.\43\
The analysis considered both worst-case and more realistic scenarios.
The worst-case scenario assumed that the most reactive HC listed as
acceptable (isobutane) was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even
though isobutane has not been listed acceptable for use in all
refrigeration and AC uses, and that all refrigerant used was emitted to