level ozone formation.\109\ In the actions where EPA listed these
refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants in
this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone
formation than other alternative refrigerants that are not VOCs or that
are specifically excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to the proposed status change are
highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, rather
than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are
expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem
effects than those of other refrigerants that are subject to the
proposed status change for this end-use.
(b) Flammability
    For the centrifugal chillers end-use, with the exceptions of HFO-
1234ze(E) and R-717, all other refrigerants listed as acceptable,
including those for which we are proposing to change the status to
unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is non-flammable at
standard temperature and pressure using the standard test method ASTM
E681; however, at higher temperatures it is mildly flammable. It is
classified as a Class 2L (lower flammability, low burning velocity)
refrigerant under the standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our assessment and
listing decision (77 FR 47768; August 10, 2012) found that the overall
risk, including the risk due to this mild flammability at elevated
temperature, is not significantly greater than for other refrigerants
or for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable.
    R-717 is slightly flammable with a low flame speed; it is
classified as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long
history of use in cold storage warehouses and other applications, but
it is not believed to be used extensively in centrifugal chillers. In
the original SNAP rule, EPA noted ``[a]mmonia has been used as a medium
to low temperature refrigerant in vapor compression cycles for more
than 100 years. Ammonia has excellent refrigerant properties, a
characteristic pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric risks, and low
cost. It is, however, slightly flammable and toxic, although it is not
a cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a 15 minute short-term
exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia.'' (53 FR 13072; March 18, 1994).
We further noted its use in various food and beverage processing and
storage applications as well as other industrial applications. In that
rule, we found R-717 acceptable for use in new centrifugal chillers,
concluding that its overall risk to human health and the environment
was not significantly greater than the other alternatives found
acceptable. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the
regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on such use as well as
standard refrigeration practices, such as the adherence to ASHRAE
Standard 15, which is often utilized by local authorities when setting
their own building and safety requirements.
    For further information, including EPA's risk screens and risk
assessments as well as information from the submitters of the
substitutes, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663.
(c) Toxicity
    The toxicity of the refrigerants we are proposing to list as
unacceptable is comparable to that of other alternatives that are
acceptable in this end-use, with the exception of R-717. R-717, for
which we are not proposing a change of status, is of a higher toxicity
than some other refrigerants and is classified as a B refrigerant under
ASHRAE 34 (2013). See section VI.A.4.a.iii.(b) for a discussion on the
long history of use of R-717 and our original decision finding it
acceptable in new centrifugal chillers. The other acceptable
alternatives listed above that are included in ASHRAE 34 (2013) are
classified as A (lower toxicity) refrigerants.
    For all refrigerants, the relatively large charge sizes employed in
centrifugal chillers, and the fact that some such chillers are placed
in an enclosed mechanical room, raise a concern regarding oxygen
displacement. This concern has been addressed over the long history of
the use of centrifugal chillers, including the use of HCFC-123, another
B refrigerant as classified by ASHRAE 34 (2013), by providing adequate
ventilation, reducing leaks to small levels, and other techniques such
as employing refrigerant sensors and automatic air movement. Commonly
followed standards and practices have reduced toxicity concerns equally
for historically used ODS, the alternatives for which we are proposing
a status

change, and the alternatives for which we are not proposing a status
change.
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants
whose status we are proposing to change to unacceptable. The risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the alternatives
than for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable, and
the GWPs for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable
are significantly higher and thus pose significantly greater risk.
iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and human-
rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA proposing?
    EPA is proposing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued
use of HFC-134a in centrifugal compressor chillers for military marine
vessels after the change of status date where reasonable efforts have
been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically
feasible due to performance or safety requirements. Under the narrowed
use limit, the end user for this military application would need to
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible and
document the results of their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For
the military, there are several unique performance requirements related
to marine vessel air conditioning systems that require extensive
testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFC-134a. The lower-GWP
alternatives available or potentially available for use in commercial
chillers either do not meet the military-unique requirements or will
require longer testing, based on available program funding for testing,
for military suitability. It will also then take additional time to
redesign, qualify, and procure new chillers for military shipbuilding
programs.
    We anticipate that most centrifugal compressor chillers in military
applications will be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by
the proposed January 1, 2024 date. However, HFC-134a chillers are
mission-critical equipment on ships and submarines, primarily in
cooling of electronics, sensors, and weapon systems, but also cooling
of ship spaces for personnel. Failure of the chillers would disable the
ship. The equipment is not the same as commercial equipment and it is
located in confined engineering spaces near other critical equipment,
including conventional and nuclear propulsion plants. All major
components are designed, tested and certified for military use
(including the compressor, motor, evaporator, condenser, and electronic
controls) and must meet military-unique requirements: Weapons effect
shock resistance, stringent electromagnetic interference resistance,
ship vibration resistance, all weather pitch and roll operation, low
acoustic signature, arctic to tropical operations (at temperatures from
28[emsp14][deg]F to 105[emsp14][deg]F), compact to fit in confined
warship spaces, 40 to 50 year service life, and very high reliability
due to extended at-sea missions. Further challenges include
installation on submarines with the inherent risk of refrigerant
leakage and need for the refrigerant to be compatible with the
submarine life support systems. Production for these equipment for
naval ships and submarines is low volume with only one certified
manufacturer, limited test facilities, and prototype hardware and
designs shared among platforms for affordability and commonality.
Another significant challenge lies in the fact that the testing program
for the use of alternatives for ships has not yet been funded. Once
funding is in place, the completion timeline to fund, test, qualify,
and begin procurement on all Navy-unique surface ship chiller designs
is estimated to be about ten years. Due to the unique challenges
associated with submarines, including potential refrigerant
incompatibility with life support systems, it may not be feasible to
implement currently available alternatives being evaluated for surface
ships. Given the limited population of submarine chillers, the
resulting greenhouse gas emissions from refrigerant leakage in this
application is not expected to be significant.
    EPA is proposing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued
use of HFC-134a and R-404A in centrifugal compressor chillers for
human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment applications after
the change of status date where reasonable efforts have been made to
ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements. Under the narrowed use limit, the
end user for this human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
application would need to ascertain that other alternatives are not
technically feasible and document the results of their analysis. See 40
CFR 82.180(b)(3). HFC-134a and R-404A chillers are used to provide
cooling to human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment during
ground-based assembly, integration and test operations, and launch. The
cooling of sensitive human-rated electrical equipment is critical to
the spacecraft technical performance and crew safety. EPA understands
that such programs use specialized ground coolant systems to provide
heat transfer during certain ground operations. These coolant
circulation systems use HFC-134a and R-404A chillers to meet the
program's stringent performance and material compatibility
requirements. Other alternatives currently listed as acceptable under
the SNAP program have not yet been proven to provide appropriate heat
transfer, material compatibility, stability in the test environment,
and other critical properties necessary for use in human-rated
spacecraft and related support equipment applications. Considering that
identification, testing, and implementation of materials to be used in
human-rated-spacecraft programs routinely take several years due to the
challenging operational environment, lengthy qualification process
associated with human rating, and the federal budgetary cycle, it may
not be feasible to deploy centrifugal chillers using other alternatives
in the proposed timeframe. Given the limited population of chillers
used in human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
applications, the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from refrigerant
leakage in this application is not expected to be significant.
    Users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category
must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or
alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to
undertake a thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the
otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to
report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document
these results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance. This information includes descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
v. When would the status change?
    The Agency understands that relevant building standards and codes
are likely to change in 2021. These include ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL
60335-2-40, and the International Building Code. The Agency believes
some amount of

time will be needed to meet the technical challenges for a safe and
smooth transition to alternatives particularly considering the
complexity of chiller designs and the need to ensure energy efficiency
levels are met. EPA is considering a range of dates from January 1,
2022, through January 1, 2025, as the change of status date for new
centrifugal chillers. Our lead proposal is a status change date of
January 1, 2024, which we believe would allow development of designs of
new centrifugal chillers using an acceptable alternative. We are aware
that some equipment has been introduced with acceptable alternatives
and that additional research and development is underway with these and
other possible alternatives.
    In addition, EPA has received communication from representatives of
AHRI and NRDC requesting a change of status date of January 1, 2025,
for HFC-134a, R-407C and R-410A, in all types of chillers.\110\ We are
encouraged that the major trade organization representing manufacturers
of chillers worked with the environmental non-governmental group to
develop this consensus agreement that all chillers could transition to
lower-GWP alternatives by or before this date and that during this time
period more and more models of such equipment would be released from
individual manufacturers. While the letter did not provide detailed
technical analysis or timelines of why this date but not an earlier
date was offered, it did indicate that their recommendation ``allows
eight years from the publication of the final rule for industry to
finish designing and bringing to market chillers using alternative
refrigerants.'' The authors pointed out that ``this conversion [in all
types of chillers] is anticipated to involve use of new 2L flammable
refrigerants, which are severely restricted by current safety and
building codes'' and added that a 2025 date ``provides time to amend
model building codes to accommodate these new refrigerants and for
adoption by state and local jurisdictions.'' AHRI and NRDC held that a
January 1, 2025 change of status date ``provides adequate time for
industry to launch products that have been tested and certified by the
existing laboratories and certification agencies . . . globally'' and
emphasized that time was required to complete revisions to ASHRAE
Standard 15, recertify the chillers with safety standards, and qualify
materials and components to ensure low-leak, high-reliability products.
They also said their recommended schedule provides time for
manufacturers to optimize the energy efficiency of their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Doniger, David (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek (AHRI), February
1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter Regarding Chiller Actions Under SNAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    DOE has established efficiency requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1-2010, for chillers used in federal buildings.\111\
EPA is not aware of any DOE energy efficiency requirements for chillers
used in non-federal buildings. Although EPA is not aware of any federal
standards that apply, EPA recognizes, however, that state and local
building codes may place certain requirements that affect the desired
efficiency of chillers. Many state and local codes reference ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. EPA's understanding of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is that it
provides both a prescriptive and performance-based measures to achieve
compliance. Under the prescriptive approach, depending on the version
of the standard, one or two ``paths'' exist setting specific energy
efficiency requirements based on the type and capacity of the chiller.
Under a performance-based approach, the energy consumption of the
chiller may exceed the prescriptive requirements provided that the
building as a whole meets or exceeds the applicable reference building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. Energy
Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings. Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/federal-building-standards. Last
updated February 13, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on a range of dates from January 1,
2022, through January 1, 2025, for the change of status of the
identified substitutes. EPA requests comment and information on any
potential environmental or other impacts of EPA adopting a date other
than January 1, 2024, which is our lead option. In particular, EPA
requests comment on whether other alternatives that reduce overall risk
would be available prior to January 1, 2024 and for comment on any
technical or other reasons that NRDC and AHRI proposed January 1, 2025
in their joint letter. EPA requests comment on the specific steps that
must be undertaken to commercialize centrifugal chillers with
alternative refrigerants, including the time each such step would take,
which steps must occur in sequence, and which steps could occur in
parallel. EPA requests comments on if and how this timing might vary
based on the characteristics of the chiller, such as but not limited
to, compressor type, capacity range, evaporator design, condenser
design (e.g., air cooled or water cooled), and refrigerant currently
used and potentially used.
    EPA requests comment on the current use of four refrigerants not
subject to the proposed change of status, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A and R-513A, in centrifugal
chillers, including the status of product availability and the capacity
range covered by such products. We also request comment on the on-going
research, development, deployment and expected increased market
penetration of centrifugal chillers using refrigerants such as trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-450A, R-513A,
DR-55,\112\ R-718 and R-744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ DR-55 is a temporary name identifying a specific HFC/HFO
blend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA requests comment on any energy efficiency
performance impacts of using the refrigerants not subject to the change
of status proposed today that could affect the ability of manufacturers
to meet current energy efficiency requirements or standards for
centrifugal chillers in the United States. Also, EPA requests comment
on the ability of centrifugal chillers using refrigerants other than
those for which we are proposing a status change to meet those energy
efficiency requirements or standards. In particular, we request comment
on the specific steps and timing of such steps required to design and
develop centrifugal chillers to meet applicable federal energy
efficiency requirements.
    EPA is also requesting comment on the proposed narrowed use
limitation for chillers on military marine vessels and human-rated
spacecraft and related support equipment where the unique requirements
would limit the availability and feasible use of alternatives not
subject to the proposed status change.
b. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Positive Displacement Chillers
    As provided in the following table, EPA is proposing to change the
status of numerous refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable for new
positive displacement chillers:

      Table 7--Proposed Change of Status Decisions for New Positive
                          Displacement Chillers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                 Substitutes        Proposed decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Displacement         FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-  Unacceptable as of
 Chillers (new only).          134a, HFC-227ea,      January 1, 2024
                               KDD6, R-125/134a/     except where
                               600a (28.1/70/1.9),   allowed under a
                               R-125/290/134a/600a   narrowed use limit.
                               (55.0/1.0/42.5/
                               1.5), R-404A, R-
                               407C, R-410A, R-
                               410B, R-417A, R-
                               421A, R-422B, R-
                               422C, R-422D, R-
                               424A, R-434A, R-
                               437A, R-438A, R-
                               507A, RS-44 (2003
                               composition),
                               SP34E, and THR-03.
Positive Displacement         HFC-134a............  Acceptable, subject
 Chillers (new only).                                to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for
                                                     military marine
                                                     vessels, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
Positive Displacement         HFC-134a and R-404A.  Acceptable, subject
 Chillers (new only).                                to narrowed use
                                                     limits, for human-
                                                     rated spacecraft
                                                     and related support
                                                     equipment, as of
                                                     January 1, 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. What is the affected end-use?
(a) Overview of Equipment Covered
    As discussed in section VI.A.4.a.i, vapor compression cycle
chillers are divided into centrifugal chillers and positive
displacement chillers. This section deals with positive displacement
chillers, which are those that utilize positive displacement
compressors such as reciprocating, screw, scroll or rotary types.
Positive displacement chillers are applied in similar situations as
centrifugal chillers, again primarily for commercial comfort AC, except
that positive displacement chillers tend to be used for smaller
capacity needs such as in mid- and low-rise buildings.
    For commercial comfort and some other applications, positive
displacement chillers typically cool water that is then pumped to fan
coil units or other air handlers to cool the air that is supplied to
the occupied spaces transferring the heat to the water. The heat
absorbed by the water can then be used for heating purposes, and/or can
be transferred directly to the air (``air-cooled''), to a cooling tower
or body of water (``water-cooled'') or through evaporative coolers
(``evaporative-cooled'').
    Positive displacement chillers are used for other applications
besides commercial comfort AC and are covered under this section of the
proposed rule. For instance, positive displacement chillers used to
cool equipment, such as in data centers, are covered under this section
of the proposed rule.
(b) What other types of equipment are used for similar applications but
are not covered by this section of the proposed rule?
    Other equipment including packaged rooftop units and split system
air conditioners, both of which fall under the SNAP end-use ``household
and light commercial air conditioning,'' can also be used for
commercial comfort AC, typically for even smaller capacity needs than
positive displacement chillers. These equipment types are not positive
displacement chillers and hence are not covered under this section of
the proposed rule.
(c) What refrigerants are used in positive displacement chillers?
    Positive displacement chillers historically used CFC-12, although
HCFC-22 was also used and became more common after the production and
consumption of CFC-12 were phased out. In accordance with CAA 605(a)
and the implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
in the United States, the use of newly manufactured HCFC-22 for new
positive displacement chillers (and other new equipment) ceased as of
January 1, 2010. Both R-407C and to a larger extent R-410A are used in
new positive displacement chillers primarily in lower capacity ranges
previously served by HCFC-22 chillers. HFC-134a is also used for new
positive-displacement chillers, including some mid-level capacity
water-cooled screw chillers.
    More recently, positive displacement chillers that use alternatives
listed as acceptable including HFO-1234ze(E) and R-513A (a blend of
HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf) have been demonstrated or announced. EPA is
aware of air-cooled rotary chillers in the 115 to 500 refrigeration ton
(400 to 1,750 kW) range using R-513A.\113\ Other chiller models using
low-GWP refrigerants have also been introduced; for instance an air-
cooled chiller using DR-55 at the IIR International Conference of
Refrigeration.\114\ EPA also notes that a water-cooled screw chiller
using HFO-1234ze \115\ has been installed in Europe.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Trane, 2015. Trane[supreg] SintesisTM Air-cooled Chillers.
This document is accessible at: http://www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/global/products-systems/equipment/chillers/air-cooled/TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf.
    \114\ Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled Chiller with Climate-
friendly Refrigerant DR-55, September 21, 2015. Available at:
www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=36282.
    \115\ EPA assumes the refrigerant used is the stereoisomer HFO-
1234ze(E) but requests comment on this assumption.
    \116\ First Carrier AquaForce Chillers using HFO-1234ze, August
2, 2015. www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=35619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is proposing to change
the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/
600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-
407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and
THR-03.
iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other
refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    For new positive displacement chillers, acceptable refrigerants for
which we are not proposing a change of status in this end-use include:
HFO-1234ze(E), IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, R-717, and THR-02.
    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; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \117\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria

(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable
alternatives for new positive displacement chillers may be found in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    The refrigerants for which we are proposing to change the status to
unacceptable have zero ODP and GWPs ranging from about 920 to 3,990. As
shown in Table 8, other alternatives for which we are not proposing a
change of status in this end-use have GWPs ranging from zero to 630.

          Table 8--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Positive Displacement Chillers 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Refrigerants                  GWP             ODP               VOC                  Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-          0-630               0  No.................  No change.
 513A.
IKON B, THR-02...................          30-560               0  Yes 3..............  No change.
HFC-134a.........................           1,430               0  No.................  Unacceptable.
FOR12A, FOR12B, SP34E, THR-03....       920-1,410               0  Yes 3..............  Unacceptable.
HFC-227ea, R-407C, R-410A, R-         1,770-3,220               0  No.................  Unacceptable.
 410B, R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/       1,810-3,250               0  Yes 3..............  Unacceptable.
 1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/
 42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
 422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-
 437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003
 composition).
R-404A, R-507A...................     3,920-3,990               0  No.................  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted
  by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
3 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    One of the refrigerant blends not subject to the proposed status
change (THR-02), as well as several of the substitutes subject to the
proposed status change, include small amounts of R-290 (propane), R-600
(butane), or other substances that are VOCs. These amounts are small
and for this end-use are not expected to contribute significantly to
ground level ozone formation.\118\ In the actions where EPA listed
these refrigerants as acceptable, EPA concluded none of these
refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-
level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that are not
VOCs or that are specifically excluded from the definition of VOC under
CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of
SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to the proposed status change are
highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, rather
than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are
expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem
effects than those of other refrigerants that are subject to the
proposed status change for this end-use.
(b) Flammability
    For the positive displacement chillers end-use, with the exception
of HFO-1234ze(E) and R-717, all other refrigerants listed as
acceptable, including those for which we are proposing to change the
status to unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is non-
flammable at standard temperature and pressure using the standard test
method ASTM E681; however, at higher temperatures it is mildly
flammable. It is classified as a Class 2L (lower flammability, low
burning velocity) refrigerant under the standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our
assessment and listing decision (77 FR 47768; August 10, 2012) found
that the overall risk, including the risk due to this mild flammability
at elevated temperature, is not significantly greater than for other
refrigerants or for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as
unacceptable. As noted above, a positive displacement chiller using
this refrigerant has already been installed.
    R-717 is slightly flammable with a low flame speed; it is
classified as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-717 has a long
history of use as a refrigerant in positive displacement chillers,
especially in water-cooled screw chillers, and other applications. In
our evaluation finding R-717 acceptable in this end-use, EPA noted
``Ammonia has been used as a medium to low temperature refrigerant in
vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. Ammonia has excellent
refrigerant properties, a characteristic pungent odor, no long-term
atmospheric risks, and low cost. It is, however, slightly flammable and
toxic, although it is not a cumulative poison. Ammonia may be used
safely if existing OSHA and ASHRAE standards are followed'' (61 FR
47015).
(c) Toxicity
    With the exception of R-717, the toxicity of the refrigerants we
are proposing to list as unacceptable is comparable to that of other
alternatives that are acceptable in this end-use. R-717, for which we
are not proposing a change of status, is of a higher toxicity than some
other refrigerants and is classified as a B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34
(2013). See section VI.A.4.b.iii.(b) for a discussion on the long
history of use of R-717 and our original decision finding it acceptable
in new positive displacement chillers.
    For all refrigerants, the possible relatively large charge sizes of
some positive displacement chillers, and the fact that some such
chillers are place in an enclosed mechanical room, raise a concern
regarding oxygen displacement. This concern has been addressed over the
long history of the use of positive displacement chillers by providing
adequate ventilation, reducing leaks to small levels, and other
techniques such as employing refrigerant sensors and automatic air
movement. Commonly followed standards and practices have reduced
toxicity concerns equally for historically used ODS, the alternatives
subject to the proposed status change, and the alternatives not subject
to the proposed status change.
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants
whose status we are proposing to change to unacceptable. The risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the

alternatives than for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as
unacceptable, and the GWPs for the refrigerants we are proposing to
list as unacceptable are significantly higher and thus pose
significantly greater risk.
iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and human-
rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA proposing?
    EPA is proposing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued
use of HFC-134a in positive displacement compressor chillers for
military marine vessels after the change of status date where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
Under the narrowed use limit, the end user for this military
application would need to ascertain that other alternatives are not
technically feasible and document the results of their analysis. See 40
CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several unique
performance requirements related to marine vessel air conditioning
systems that require extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives
for HFC-134a. The lower-GWP alternatives available or potentially
available for use in commercial chillers either do not meet the
military-unique requirements or will require longer timeframes to test,
based on available program funding for testing, for military
suitability. It will also then take additional time to redesign,
qualify, and procure new chillers for military shipbuilding programs.
See additional information in section VI.A.4.a.iv above on centrifugal
chillers.
    EPA is proposing a narrowed use limit that would allow continued
use of HFC-134a and R-404A in positive displacement compressor chillers
for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment applications
after the change of status date where reasonable efforts have been made
to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due
to performance or safety requirements. Under the narrowed use limit,
the end user for this human-rated spacecraft and related support
equipment application would need to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible and document the results of their
analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). HFC-134a and R-404A chillers are
used to provide cooling to human-rated spacecraft and related support
equipment during ground-based assembly, integration and test
operations, and launch. The cooling of sensitive human-rated electrical
equipment is critical to the spacecraft technical performance and crew
safety. EPA understands that such programs use specialized ground
coolant systems to provide heat transfer during certain ground
operations. These coolant circulation systems use HFC-134a and R-404A
chillers to meet the program's stringent performance and material
compatibility requirements. Other alternatives currently listed as
acceptable under the SNAP program have not yet been proven to provide
appropriate heat transfer, material compatibility, stability in the
test environment, and other critical properties necessary for use in
human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment applications.
Considering that identification, testing, and implementation of
materials to be used in human-rated spacecraft programs routinely take
several years due to the challenging operational environment, lengthy
qualification process associated with human rating, and the federal
budgetary cycle, it may not be feasible to deploy positive displacement
chillers using other alternatives in the proposed timeframe. Given the
limited population of chillers used in human-rated spacecraft and
related support equipment applications, the resulting greenhouse gas
emissions from refrigerant leakage in this application is not expected
to be significant.
    Users of a restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category
must make a reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or
alternatives are not technically feasible. Users are expected to
undertake a thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the
otherwise restricted substitute. Although users are not required to
report the results of their investigations to EPA, users must document
these results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance. This information includes descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
v. When would the status change?
    The Agency understands that relevant building standards and codes
are likely to change in 2021. These include ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL
60335-2-40, and the International Building Code. The Agency believes
some amount of time will be needed to meet the technical challenges for
a safe and smooth transition to alternatives particularly considering
the complexity of chiller designs and the need to ensure energy
efficiency levels are met. EPA is considering a range of dates from
January 1, 2022, through January 1, 2025, as the change of status date
for new positive displacement chillers. Our lead proposal is a status
change date of January 1, 2024, which we believe would allow
development of designs of new positive displacement chillers using an
acceptable alternative. We are aware that some equipment has been
introduced with acceptable alternatives and that additional research
and development is underway with these and other possible alternatives.
    In addition, EPA has received communication from representatives of
AHRI and NRDC requesting a change of status date of January 1, 2025,
for HFC-134a, R-407C and R-410A, in all types of chillers. See section
VI.A.4.a.v.
vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    DOE has established efficiency requirements, based on ANSI/ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1-2010, for chillers used in federal buildings.\119\
See section VI.A.4.a.vi for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. Energy
Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings. Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/federal-building-standards. Last
updated February 13, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on a range of dates from January 1,
2022, through January 1, 2025, for the change of status of the
identified substitutes. EPA requests comment and information on any
potential environmental or other impacts of EPA adopting a date other
than January 1, 2024, which is our lead option. In particular, EPA
requests comment on whether other alternatives that reduce overall risk
would be available prior to January 1, 2024 and for comment on any
technical or other reasons that NRDC and AHRI proposed January 1, 2025
in their joint letter. EPA requests comment on the specific steps that
must be undertaken to commercialize positive displacement chillers with
alternative refrigerants, including the time each such step would take,
which steps must occur in sequence, and which steps could occur in
parallel. EPA requests comments on if and how this timing might vary
based on the characteristics of the chiller, such as but not limited
to, compressor type,

capacity range, evaporator design, condenser design (e.g., air cooled
or water cooled), and refrigerant currently used and potentially used.
EPA requests comment on the current use of three refrigerants, HFO-
1234ze(E), R-450A and R-513A, in positive displacement chillers,
including the status of product availability and the capacity range
covered by such products. We also request comment on the on-going
research, development, deployment and expected increased market
penetration of positive displacement chillers using refrigerants such
as HFO-1234ze(E), R-290, R-450A, R-513A, DR-55, R-718 and R-744.
    Additionally, EPA requests comment on any energy efficiency
performance impacts of using the refrigerants not subject to the change
of status proposed today that could affect the ability of manufacturers
to meet current energy efficiency requirements or standards for
positive displacement chillers in the United States. Also, EPA requests
comment on the ability of positive displacement chillers using
refrigerants other than those for which we are proposing a status
change to meet those energy efficiency requirements or standards. In
particular, we request comment on the specific steps and timing of such
steps required to design and develop positive displacement chillers to
meet federal energy efficiency requirements.
    EPA is also requesting comment on the proposed narrowed use
limitation for chillers on military marine vessels and human-rated
spacecraft and related support equipment where the unique requirements
would limit the availability and feasible use of alternatives not
subject to the proposed status change.
c. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Cold
Storage Warehouses
    As provided in the following table, EPA is proposing to change the
status of numerous refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable for new
cold storage warehouses.

Table 9--Proposed Change of Status Decisions for Cold Storage Warehouses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Proposed
            End-use                   Substitutes           decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Storage Warehouses (new).  HFC-227ea, R-125/290/   Unacceptable as
                                 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/    of January 1,
                                 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-   2023.
                                 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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. What is the affected end-use?
    Cold storage warehouses are temperature-controlled facilities used
to store meat, produce, dairy and other products that are delivered to
other locations for sale to the ultimate consumer. This end-use within
the SNAP program describes an application of refrigeration equipment
for an intended purpose, and hence the listings of acceptable and
unacceptable refrigerants for this end-use apply regardless of the type
of refrigeration system used. In addition to traditional vapor-
compression cycle systems, EPA has found several not-in-kind systems
acceptable for this end-use, including ammonia absorption, evaporative
cooling, desiccant cooling, and Stirling cycle systems, which are not
subject to the proposed status change.
    Cold storage warehouses are usually deemed ``private'' or
``public,'' describing the relationship between the owner or operator
of the cold storage warehouse and the owner of the products stored
within. Private cold storage warehouses are ones owned by a company for
the purpose of storing its products; for instance, a food producer,
processor or shipper may own and operate a facility as a distribution
point for its products. Likewise, a supermarket chain may own and
operate a facility to control the distribution of a variety of products
to multiple stores in a given region. A public cold storage warehouse
provides storage for lease and hence may receive and hold products from
multiple producers and for multiple supermarkets or other vendors. Some
cold storage warehouses may be both public and private, with one part
dedicated to the owner's products and another part available for lease.
All such types of cold storage warehouses are included within the SNAP
end-use.
    Cold storage warehouses are also often divided into two general
uses: Those storing products at temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C)
and those storing products below this temperature. The former is
referred to as a ``cooler'' while the term ``freezer'' is used for the
latter. The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration provides an
additional cooler application called ``controlled atmosphere for long-
term fruit and vegetable storage'' and three subdivisions of freezers:
``high-temperature freezers'' storing goods at 27 to 28 [deg]F (-2.8 to
-2.2 [deg]C), ``low-temperature storage rooms for general frozen
products, usually maintained at -5 to -20 [deg]F'' (-21 to -29 [deg]C),
and low-temperature storage at the same temperature range as before but
``with a surplus of refrigeration for freezing products received at
above 0 [deg]F'' (-18 [deg]C).
    Several other end-uses under the SNAP program cover other parts of
the food (and product) cold chain, and are distinct from the cold
storage warehouse end-use. These are discussed here as examples of what
EPA considers to be part of or separate from the ``cold storage
warehouse'' end-use for which we are proposing changes of status.
    Many food products require refrigeration during the production
process. The application of refrigerating equipment used during the
production of food and beverages falls within the SNAP end-use
``industrial process refrigeration.'' The industrial process
refrigeration end-use would include all equipment and operations (that
use a refrigerant) used to make and prepare food that is not
immediately available for sale to the ultimate consumer and would
require shipping it, possibly through intermediate points, to the point
where such sale would occur. The industrial process refrigeration end-
use could be applied at facilities where food is processed and packaged
by the food producer. An example could be a meat processor that
prepares and packages individual cuts of meat within a single facility
or building while maintaining the required temperatures within that
facility or building. Although such facilities may be designed in a
fashion similar to a cold storage warehouse, the fact that items are
being processed by the food producer indicates that the application
falls in the industrial process refrigeration end-use. However, if a
food producer operates a refrigerated storage area solely for the
holding of already packaged products, and possibly packing such
products in larger containers or bundles for shipment, that application
would fall under the cold-storage warehouse end-use. In the

example above, such a cold storage warehouse might be a facility,
separate from the industrial process refrigeration system in a
different facility, where the individually-packaged cuts of meat are
packed in a larger container that is placed on a pallet and then
shipped.
    Another example of an industrial process refrigeration system is a
``blast cooler'' or ``blast freezer.'' As described previously in a
separate SNAP rulemaking ``[a] `blast chiller' or `blast freezer' is a
type of equipment in which cold air is supplied and circulated rapidly
to a food product, generally to quickly cool or freeze a product before
damage or spoilage can occur.'' (80 FR 42901; July 20, 2015). Such
devices might be used as part of a food production line in an
industrial setting. They also can be placed separately at public
facilities including hospitals, schools, restaurants and supermarkets.
These public facilities might use the blast chiller on products that
they will store for later use after they receive products from a vendor
or that they cook or prepare as part of their operations. Such units
might also be placed near entranceways to cold storage warehouses, for
instance to receive food shipped refrigerated at one temperature and
bring it down to a lower temperature for storage. EPA does not consider
a separate blast chiller or blast freezer (i.e., one with its own
refrigerant-containing circuit, including the compressor, evaporator
and the condenser or heat exchanger) to be part of a cold storage
warehouse. Another design, however, could consist of a refrigeration
system that is used to provide refrigerant (or a secondary fluid in an
indirect system) to the evaporators extracting heat from the cold
storage warehouse as well as to the evaporators used by a blast chiller
or blast freezer that is installed at the facility. In this situation,
EPA expects that the majority of the load and intended use of the
combination system is for the cold storage of products, including those
that undergo the blast cooling or freezing, and hence we consider the
system to be a cold storage warehouse. For such systems, certain
refrigerants would be subject to the proposed change of status as
explained below.
    As discussed in section VI.A.4.d, because products from
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment are generally
available for sale to the ultimate consumer, that end-use category,
part of the retail food refrigeration end-use, is distinct from
industrial process refrigeration.
    Another application in the food cold chain is the use of a ``cold
room'' at a retail facility where refrigerated food is kept generally
for short periods of time. In the July 20, 2015, final rule (80 FR
42870), EPA changed the status of certain refrigerants used in ``remote
condensing units'' and ``stand-alone systems,'' two categories within
the ``retail food refrigeration'' end-use that include equipment that
can be used for such cold rooms. Remote condensing units may include a
dedicated one- or two-compressor system with condensers located on a
roof or the side of a building providing cooling through unit coolers
to an insulated room, for instance in a restaurant or supermarket, that
are built and charged with refrigerant at the site. Also, some cold
rooms are stand-alone systems that are pre-charged at the factory and
ready to use once placed at the retailer's facility and provided with
electrical and possibly plumbing connections, and are accessed via a
door to store refrigerated products. In general, both types of
applications are often called ``walk-in coolers'' or ``walk-in
freezers,'' depending on the design temperature.
    Such cold rooms are used to store products at required temperatures
until sale to the ultimate consumer, such as a shopper in a supermarket
or a diner in a restaurant. In some cases, one side of the room is
fitted with glass doors and racks where the owner stacks products on
the racks and the consumer obtains the product from the rack. In other
cases, the cold room is only accessible by employees of the retail food
establishment. For these applications, even if this equipment is not
accessible to the public--for instance, it is in the back of a
supermarket and holds products that are later brought to display cases
from which customers obtain the products; or in the back of a
restaurant where a cook takes and prepares the food that is brought to
the diner by a waiter--it is considered part of the retail
establishment and hence is part of the ``retail food refrigeration''
end-use and is not included in the ``cold storage warehouse'' end-use.
The changes of status proposed in this action would not apply to such
``cold rooms,'' ``walk-in coolers,'' or ``walk-in freezers;'' however,
EPA refers the reader to a previous rulemaking that does apply (80 FR
42870; July 20, 2015).
    R-717 is believed to be the most common refrigerant used in cold
storage warehouses. While R-717 is not used extensively in many other
types of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, certain
characteristics of cold storage warehouses have facilitated the
widespread use of that refrigerant in this end-use. For example,
because cold storage warehouses are often large in size for economies
of scale reason and require a large amount of land use--as opposed to
other systems that might be located on a building roof or a small slab
next to the building--they are typically located away from population
centers where land costs and taxes may be higher. Also, because they
often service multiple retail locations and may receive goods from
multiple producers, cold storage warehouses are often sited where major
transportation services (i.e., highways and rail lines) are available
and are less prone to high traffic delays and similar disruptions that
are more common in population centers. In addition, the transportation
of goods is typically done in large volumes--by truck or train--to
reduce costs, which in turn reduces the workforce needed and the number
of people at the warehouse and in particular near the refrigeration
equipment. These factors allow for more consideration of the use of
refrigerants that do pose toxicity and flammability risks, such as R-
717, than in other applications where more people might be at risk,
such as an office building.
    Limitations on the use of R-717 do exist. For example, it is
reported that charge sizes exceeding 10,000 pounds of R-717 ``may
require government-mandated process safety management (PSM) and [a]
risk management plan (RMP)''.\120\ Various state and local building
codes could also apply and adherence to such codes might hinder or even
eliminate the use of R-717 in some cold storage warehouses. Likewise,
regulations may require employing operators with special levels of
expertise, reporting of use or accidental releases, and other actions
not typically required for other alternatives, increasing the operating
cost compared to facilities using other refrigerants. These increased
costs however are often offset given the high energy efficiencies
typically achieved with ammonia systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers,
Inc. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the limitations on the use of R-717 in cold storage
warehouses may be overcome with system designs that have been
introduced or have been more fully explored recently. These include low
charge packaged R-717 systems, R-717/R-744 cascade systems, and
indirect secondary-loop systems using R-717 as the primary refrigerant
in a machine room separated from the cooled interior. These systems are
described in market characterizations found in the docket to

this proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where R-717 was not used, cold storage warehouses traditionally
used CFC-12, R-502 and HCFC-22. With the 1996 CFC phaseout, and the
restriction on the use of newly manufactured HCFC-22 in new equipment
that took effect January 1, 2010, R-404A or R-507A are generally used
when R-717 is not chosen. Two nonflammable HFC/HFO blends, R-448A and
R-449A, are designed to perform similarly to R-404A and R-507A and are
under investigation for this use. EPA also notes that a major retailer
recently announced progress on implementing HFC-free food distribution
centers.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The White House, 2015. FACT SHEET: Obama Administration
and Private-Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Commitments and Robust
Progress to Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, October 15, 2015.
Accessible at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama-administration-and-private-sector-leaders-announce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    For new cold storage warehouses, EPA is proposing to change the
status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable:
HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-
407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003
composition).
    EPA understands that existing cold storage warehouses may undergo
expansion to handle needs such as increased production, consolidation
of distribution points, or increased population or other reasons for
increased demands of the products stored. Such expansions could include
a physical expansion of the storage space or using racking techniques
to increase the amount of product within a given facility. The owner of
cold storage warehouses undergoing such expansions (or the owner's
designer) may determine that a new system needs to be added. That new
system could be a complete newly manufactured system separate from the
existing system, or it could be equipment and refrigerant added to the
existing system increasing the capacity of the existing system. In both
cases, EPA considers these actions as the manufacturing of a new system
and hence that equipment could be affected by the proposed changes of
status, as explained further below.
    EPA addressed the difference between a ``new'' and ``retrofit''
system as used in the SNAP program in a previous rule (80 FR 42902-
42903; July 20, 2015). As used in the SNAP program, ``new'' refers to
the manufacture and often installation of a refrigeration system, which
may occur on a newly manufactured or an existing cold storage
warehouse. This proposed action would apply to expansion of the
refrigeration system in an existing cold storage warehouse as being
designated a ``new'' system if the capacity of that existing
refrigeration system is increased to handle the expansion. On the other
hand, if an existing refrigeration system is extended (for instance, by
adding additional refrigerant lines and evaporators to a newly
manufactured or newly commissioned building, to a portion of the
existing facility previously not used for cold storage, or to an
extension of the previous building), without requiring an increase in
capacity, the system is not considered ``new'' and hence may continue
its operations with the existing refrigerant. Likewise, a facility may
increase the amount of products it handles while at the same time
providing better sealing around infiltration points and/or increasing
the insulation on walls and roofs, and thereby avoid the need to
increase the refrigeration capacity of the equipment serving the cold
storage warehouse. EPA requests comment on the definition of ``new''
and how it applies to cold storage warehouses. In particular, EPA
requests comments on the likelihood and frequency that existing cold
storage warehouses are expanded and whether it is typical to utilize or
expand the existing refrigeration system to address the increased load
from the facility expansion or whether it is typical to install a new
system specifically to handle that expansion.
iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other
refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    For new cold storage warehouses, acceptable refrigerants for which
we are not proposing a change of status in this end-use include:
FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-407C, R-407F, R-437A,
R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744, RS-24 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-02,
and THR-03.
    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; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \123\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for acceptable alternatives for new cold storage warehouses may be
found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    The refrigerants we are proposing to find unacceptable through this
action have zero ODPs, but they have GWPs ranging from 2,090 to 3,990.
As shown in Table 10, acceptable alternatives have GWPs ranging from
zero to 1,820.

             Table 10--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Cold Storage Warehouses 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Refrigerants                 GWP          ODP               VOC                    Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, CO2, R-450A, R-513A.......        0-630            0  No..................  No change.
IKON A, IKON B, THR-02.............       30-560            0  Yes \3\.............  No change.
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F...........  1,430-1,820            0  No..................  No change.
FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-437A, RS-24    920-1,810            0  Yes \3\.............  No change.
 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-   2,090-2,800            0  No..................  Unacceptable.
 421A, R-423A.
R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/      2,260-2,730            0  Yes \3\.............  Unacceptable.
 1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R-
 424A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003
 composition).
HFC-227ea, R-421B, R-404A, R-507A..  3,190-3,990            0  No..................  Unacceptable.

R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A.....  3,080-3,610            0  Yes \3\.............  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to the proposed status
change, as well as several of the substitutes subject to the proposed
status change, include small amounts of R-290, R-600, or other
substances that are VOCs. These amounts are small and for this end-use,
are not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation.\124\ In the actions where EPA listed these refrigerants as
acceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA concluded none
of these refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly greater risk
to ground-level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants
that are not VOCs or that are specifically excluded from the definition
of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to the proposed status change are
highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, rather
than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are
expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem
effects than those of other refrigerants that are subject to the
proposed status change for this end-use.
(b) Flammability
    For the cold storage warehouse end-use, with the exception of R-
717, the acceptable refrigerants not subject to proposed changes of
status, as well as those that are subject to proposed changes of
status, are not flammable. R-717 is slightly flammable with a low flame
speed; it is classified as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R-
717 has a long history of use as a refrigerant in cold storage
warehouses and other applications. In the original SNAP rule, EPA noted
``[a]mmonia has been used as a medium to low temperature refrigerant in
vapor compression cycles for more than 100 years. Ammonia has excellent
refrigerant properties, a characteristic pungent odor, no long-term
atmospheric risks, and low cost. It is, however, slightly flammable and
toxic, although it is not a cumulative poison. OSHA standards specify a
15 minute short-term exposure limit of 35 ppm for ammonia.'' (53 FR
13072; March 18, 1994). We further noted its use in various food and
beverage processing and storage applications as well as other
industrial applications. In that rule, we found R-717 acceptable for
use in new cold storage warehouses, concluding that its overall risk to
human health and the environment was not significantly greater than the
other alternatives found acceptable. This conclusion was based on the
assumption that the regulated community adheres to OSHA regulations on
such use as well as standard refrigeration practices, such as the
adherence to ASHRAE Standard 15, which is often utilized by local
authorities when setting their own building and safety requirements.
(c) Toxicity
    For the cold storage warehouse end-use, with the exception of R-
717, the acceptable refrigerants not subject to the proposed status
change, as well as those that are subject to the proposed status
change, are of low toxicity (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE Standard
34-2013 are class A toxicity). R-717, for which we are not proposing a
change of status, is of a higher toxicity than some other refrigerants
and is classified as a B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). See
section VI.A.4.c.iii.(b) for a discussion on the long history of use of
R-717 and our original decision finding it acceptable in new cold
storage warehouses.
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants
whose status we are proposing to change to unacceptable. The risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the alternatives
than for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable, and
the GWPs for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable
are significantly higher and thus pose significantly greater risk.
iv. When would the status change?
    EPA is proposing a change of status date for new cold storage
warehouses of January 1, 2023, which the Agency believes is the
earliest date by which the technical challenges can be met for a safe
and smooth transition to alternatives, particularly considering the
various equipment types that could be employed to provide the cooling
necessary for new cold storage warehouses and the requirement for many
of these equipment types to meet energy conservation standards while
undergoing such a transition. Given the widespread use of other
acceptable alternatives, particularly R-717, EPA expects that only a
limited number of new cold storage warehouses, including expansions at
existing facilities, would otherwise have been designed to use one of
the alternatives for which we are proposing a change of status.
Nonetheless, because of the restrictions that may apply on the use of
ammonia at the local level, and the variety of equipment that could be
applied at a cold storage warehouse, EPA expects that this period of
time is necessary until acceptable alternatives will become available
for cold storage warehouses. HFC blends, primarily R-404A and R-507A,
like CFCs and HCFCs in the past, may have been used where R-717 was
deemed by the owner as impractical, costly, onerous and/or too risky to
use, given the restrictions that might exist in certain locations or
for certain applications. For such locations and applications, the cold
storage warehouse industry may need the time proposed to develop
equipment with other alternative refrigerants or address the issues
that exist with R-717 and the other alternatives that are not subject
to the proposed change in status. As explained below, certain types of
equipment potentially applied in cold storage warehouses are subject to
energy conservation standards, and hence time will be required to
design, test and certify equipment for those standards, while at the
same time using acceptable alternatives.

v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    EPA is not aware of other federal rules applying to efficiency of
cold storage warehouses (i.e., the buildings), but we find that some
federal rules apply to equipment that could be used in this specified
end-use. Specifically, EPA notes that air-cooled commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps (``CUACs'' and ``CUHPs'') might be applied
at cold storage warehouses, and such equipment is subject to DOE energy
conservation standards.
    DOE recently issued a pre-publication version of a direct final
rule affecting CUACs and CUHPs (see docket numbers EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0007 and EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021). DOE's standards require that minimum
energy efficiency levels be met by January 1, 2018 and that a second
phase of minimum energy efficiency levels be met by January 1, 2023.
The 2023 date was chosen by the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee Working Group as a time when alternative
refrigerants could be adopted during design modifications for the
second phase of DOE's minimum energy efficiency levels. In adopting a
2023 date, DOE stated ``In recognition of the issues related to
alternative refrigerants, members of the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) Working Group agreed as
part of the Term Sheet to delay implementation of the second phase of
increased energy conservation standard levels until January 1, 2023, in
part to align dates with potential refrigerant phase-outs and to
provide sufficient development lead time after safety requirements for
acceptable alternatives have been established.'' (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/CUAC-CUHP%20CWAF%20Direct%20Final%20Rule.pdf). Further, DOE indicated that
``Delaying the implementation of the second phase of standards in the
manner recommended and agreed to by the Working Group will provide
manufacturers with flexibility and additional time to comply with both
energy conservation standards and potential refrigerant changes,
allowing manufacturers to better coordinate equipment redesign to
reduce the cumulative [regulatory] burden.''
    DOE issued a final rulemaking on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 32049) that
set nineteen energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers with a compliance date of June 5, 2017. Due to
litigation regarding this rulemaking, DOE vacated six of those
standards for refrigeration systems and is currently engaged in a
negotiated rulemaking to address the standards as referenced in the
agency's technical amendments final rulemaking (80 FR 69837, November
12, 2015). For purposes of the DOE regulations, the Energy Conservation
Act 42 U.S.C. 6311(20) defines walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers as
having a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet. EPA
considers the vast majority of such equipment to fit within the retail
food refrigeration end-use, rather than the cold storage warehouse end-
use. As described in the July 20, 2015 SNAP final rule, walk-in coolers
and walk-in freezers as pertaining to DOE regulations could fall in the
SNAP retail food refrigeration end-use category ``supermarket system''
(i.e., where refrigerant from a multi-compressor rack was supplied to
the evaporator(s) in the walk-in enclosed storage space), ``remote
condensing unit'' (where a dedicated one- or two-compressor system
installed in the field supplied the refrigerant to the walk-in enclosed
storage space) or ``stand-alone equipment'' (where the enclosed storage
space is manufactured and delivered with all components including the
refrigerant). Thus, we consider there to be no regulatory overlap
between the vast majority of equipment to provide cooling to cold
storage warehouses, which is addressed by this proposed rule and the
DOE energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers. One
exception might be where a refrigeration system (that does not
otherwise fit into the SNAP end-use categories of supermarket system or
remote condensing units) supplied refrigerant to an enclosed storage
space with an area less than 3,000 square foot. This enclosed storage
space would be required to meet both this proposed rule and the DOE
requirements. On the other hand, if this refrigeration system supplied
refrigerant to two enclosed storage spaces, one with an area greater
than 3,000 square foot and one with an area less than that amount, both
spaces would be covered by this proposed rule as cold storage
warehouses while only the smaller room is covered by the DOE
requirements.
vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on the types and subdivisions of cold
storage warehouses explained here and whether other subdivisions of the
end-use should be considered for this action. In particular, EPA
requests comments on whether different alternatives are used or are
otherwise available for different types of cold storage warehouses, why
such differences exist, and whether the proposed change of status
decisions, including the date such changes occur, might be affected
considering such differences.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed decision to change the status
of the identified substitutes to unacceptable on January 1, 2023, and
on the specific steps that must be undertaken to commercialize cold
storage warehouse refrigeration equipment with alternative
refrigerants, including the time each such step would take, which steps
must occur in sequence, and which steps could occur in parallel. EPA
requests comments on if and how this timing might vary based on the
characteristics of the cold storage warehouse and application of the
equipment. Such characteristics could include but are not limited to
the equipment and system design (i.e., direct or indirect, central or
unitary/packaged equipment), the required temperatures, jurisdictional
limitations (e.g., at State or local levels), and considerations of
risk and safety (e.g., to workers, those transporting goods to/from the
facility, and the local public depending on the location). EPA requests
comment on how these different distinctions may affect any federal
rules that apply to the equipment or subsets thereof, for instance DOE
energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
    Additionally, EPA requests comment on any energy efficiency
performance impacts of using the refrigerants not subject to the change
of status proposed today that could affect the ability of manufacturers
to meet current energy efficiency requirements or standards for cold
storage warehouses in the United States. Also, EPA requests comment on
the ability of cold storage warehouses using refrigerants other than
those for which we are proposing a status change to meet those energy
efficiency requirements or standards. In particular, we request comment
on the specific steps and timing of such steps required to design and
develop cold storage warehouses to meet applicable federal energy
efficiency requirements.
    EPA requests comment on the distinctions made here between cold
storage warehouses and other SNAP end-uses. In particular, EPA requests
comments on whether such distinctions are clear and if not, comments on
how to make such distinctions clear so that they are understood by the
regulated community.

    EPA requests comment on the definition of ``new'' and how it
applies to cold storage warehouses. In particular, EPA requests
comments on the likelihood and frequency that existing cold storage
warehouses are expanded and whether it is typical to utilize or expand
the existing refrigeration system to address the increased load from
the facility expansion or whether it is typical to install a new system
specifically to handle that expansion.
    EPA also requests comment on the current and expected use of
refrigerants in cold storage warehouses. In particular, we request
comment on the continued use of ODS and on the use of the HFCs for
which we propose a change of status. We request comment on the factors
that led to the decision to use those refrigerants as opposed to other
refrigerants for which we are not proposing a change of status,
including especially R-717, which as explained above has been used
widely in this end-use. We request comment on the use of other
alternatives, including the ones for which we are not proposing a
change of status and others that may be in development, and the
expected availability and penetration into the cold storage warehouse
market for such alternatives. Two nonflammable HFC/HFO blends, R-448A
and R-449A, are designed to perform similarly to R-404A and R-507A and
are under investigation for this use. EPA requests comment on the
status of such investigations and results seen to date.
    We request comment on our interpretation that there may be some
overlap between EPA's proposed status change in cold storage warehouses
and DOE's regulatory activity on walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers,
as discussed in section VI.A.4.c.v above.
d. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Retail Food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing
Equipment)
    As provided in the following table, EPA is proposing to change the
status of numerous refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable for new
retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment):

      Table 11--Proposed Change of Status Decisions for Retail Food
                              Refrigeration
         [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Proposed
            End-use                   Substitutes           decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration       HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ Unacceptable as
 (refrigerated food processing   290/134a/600a (55.0/    of January 1,
 and dispensing equipment)       1.0/42.5/1.5), R-       2021.
 (new only).                     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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. What is the affected end-use?
    In the SNAP July 20, 2015, final rule (80 FR 42870), EPA clarified
in the response to comments that ``equipment designed to make or
process cold food and beverages that are dispensed via a nozzle,
including soft-serve ice cream machines, `slushy' iced beverage
dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers'' was not included as part of the
retail food refrigeration end-use categories specifically identified in
that final rule. In the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA clarified that
this equipment is part of a separate end-use category within the retail
food refrigeration end-use--``refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment.'' A variety of food and beverage products are
dispensed and often processed by equipment within this end-use
category, including but not limited to: Chilled and frozen beverages
(carbonated and uncarbonated, alcoholic and nonalcoholic); frozen
custards, gelato, ice cream, Italian ice, sorbets and yogurts;
milkshakes, ``slushies'' and smoothies, and whipped cream. For
instance, some such equipment will process the product by combining
ingredients, mixing and preparing it at the proper temperature, while
others function mainly as a holding tank to deliver the product at the
desired temperature or to deliver chilled ingredients for the
processing, mixing and preparation. Some may use a refrigerant in a
heat pump, or utilize waste heat from the cooling system, to provide
hot beverages. Some may also provide heating functions to melt or
dislodge ice or for sanitation purposes.
    We noted in the July 20, 2015, final rule that refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment ``can be self-contained or can be
connected via piping to a dedicated condensing unit located elsewhere''
(80 FR 42902) and clarify here that both types fall within this end-use
category. The equipment can be air-cooled although in some cases where
multiple units are together and/or other space constraints exist (and
hence air movement to the condenser would be compromised), a separate
water line could be used to remove heat.
    This end-use category does not include certain types of
refrigeration equipment. For example, units designed solely to cool and
dispense water, including those that feature detachable containers of
water as well as those that are supplied directly from a shared water
supply, fall under the separate ``Water Coolers'' end-use within the
SNAP program. In addition, this end-use category does not include the
preparation of chilled products in factory situations; such equipment
falls under the SNAP end-use ``Industrial Process Refrigeration'' and
are characterized as being those that do not provide products to the
ultimate consumer for immediate or near-immediate consumption. Also
included in the industrial process refrigeration end-use are blast
chillers and freezers, including those that may be used at consumer
settings such as schools, hotels, supermarkets, hospitals, restaurants,
etc. Further, this end-use category does not include the equipment used
to transport food products between distinct points of production and
storage, such as refrigerated trucks that may transport products from a
factory to a cold storage warehouse or from that warehouse to a
supermarket or restaurant. That type of equipment falls under the SNAP
end-use ``Refrigerated Transport.''
    As part of the retail food refrigeration end-use, any alternative
that has been listed broadly acceptable for the retail food
refrigeration end-use, as opposed to being listed for only an
individual end-use category within the retail food end-use, is likewise
acceptable for this end-use category. For example, because R-744 was
found acceptable for the retail food refrigeration end-use (74 FR
50129; September 30, 2009), it is acceptable for the refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment category within the retail food
refrigeration end-use. Those alternatives that have been found broadly

unacceptable for this end-use, or those that have been found acceptable
only for other specific end-use categories in this end-use, would not
be acceptable alternatives under current regulations. For example,
propane has been listed specifically for certain end-use categories
such as standalone reach in coolers indicating it is not necessarily
acceptable for all other end-use categories within the retail food end-
use. Hence, the following alternatives are currently acceptable for new
refrigerated food process and dispensing equipment: FOR12A, FOR12B,
HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A,
R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-450A, R-507A, R-744, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03. On
the other hand, because in our December 2011 and April 2015 final rules
we found R-290, R-600a and R-441A acceptable only for stand-alone
units, those alternatives are not currently acceptable for equipment in
this end-use category.
ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    For new refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, EPA
is proposing to change the status of the following refrigerants from
acceptable to unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B,
R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).
iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other
refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment), acceptable refrigerants for which we are not
proposing a change of status in this end-use category include: FOR12A,
FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), R-
450A, R-744, SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03.
    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; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \125\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for acceptable alternatives for new refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment may be found in the docket for this rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    The refrigerants for which we are proposing a change of status
through this action have zero ODP, but they have GWPs ranging from
1,770 to 3,990. As shown in Table 12, acceptable alternatives have GWPs
ranging from one to 1,510.

               Table 12--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Refrigerants in New Retail Food Refrigeration
                          [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Refrigerants                  GWP             ODP               VOC                  Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, HFC-134a, R-450A............         1-1,430               0  No................  No change.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, R-       30-1,510               0  Yes \3\...........  No change.
 426A, RS-24 (2002 composition),
 SP34E, THR-02, THR-03.
R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-    1,770-2,800               0  No................  Unacceptable.
 410A, R-410B, R-421A.
KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/      1,810-2,730               0  Yes \3\...........  Unacceptable.
 42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-
 422D, R-424A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-
 44 (2003 composition).
HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-421B, R-507A     3,190-3,990               0  No................  Unacceptable.
R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A...     3,080-3,610               0  Yes \3\...........  Unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

    Some of the refrigerant blends not subject to the proposed status
change, as well as several of the substitutes subject to the proposed
status change, include small amounts of VOC such as R-290 (propane) and
R-600 (butane). These amounts are small, and for this end-use are not
expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation.\126\ In the actions where EPA listed these refrigerants as
acceptable, EPA concluded none of these refrigerants in this end-use
pose significantly greater risk to ground-level ozone formation than
other alternative refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are
specifically excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refrigerants not subject to the proposed status change are
highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, rather
than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are
expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem
effects than those of other refrigerants that are subject to the
proposed status change for this end-use.
(b) Flammability
    For the retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and
dispensing equipment) end-use category, all other refrigerants,
including those for which we are proposing to change the status to
unacceptable, are not flammable (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE
Standard 34-2013 are class 1 flammability).

(c) Toxicity
    Toxicity is not a significant concern for the refrigerants we are
proposing to list as unacceptable. Their toxicity is comparable to that
of other alternatives that are acceptable in this end-use. For the
retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and dispensing
equipment) end-use category, all other refrigerants, including those
for which we are proposing to change the status to unacceptable, are of
lower toxicity (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 are
class A toxicity).
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants
whose status we are proposing to change to unacceptable. The risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the alternatives
than for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable, and
the GWPs for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable
are significantly higher and thus pose significantly greater risk.
iv. When would the status change?
    EPA is proposing a change of status date for new retail food
refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment)
of January 1, 2021, which the Agency believes is the earliest date by
which the technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth
transition to alternatives particularly considering the need for
equipment to comply with any sanitation, safety and energy conservation
standards while continuing to maintain the properties, characteristics
and quality of the food or beverage provided by the equipment. EPA
recognizes that some manufacturers will need time to test alternative
refrigerants and develop equipment to use them while meeting other
standards that may apply. We find however that components for some
refrigerants, such as HFC-134a, are in wide supply. Further, as noted
in our July 2015 rule, at least one major beverage retailer has chosen
R-744 as its alternative refrigerant for stand-alone equipment and
vending machines. Given the change of status dates established for such
products in that rule (from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2020) precede
the change of status date we are proposing here, we expect an
increasing supply of R-744 components that could be utilized in
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. We note that two
substitutes are currently awaiting SNAP review for this end-use. These
two substitutes, R-448A and R-449A, are designed to mimic R-404A and
could be readily adapted to those refrigerants if they are listed as
acceptable in the future. As discussed below, there are other relevant
requirements that mean that newly designed equipment will need to be
certified as complying with sanitation and safety standards, and some
may be required to meet energy conservation standards issued by DOE.
These standards apply to similar equipment that falls within other end-
use categories of the retail food refrigeration end-use, and changes of
status for those end-use categories take effect January 1, 2020, or
before. Those requirements will provide additional incentive for
refrigerant producers to increase low-GWP refrigerant supply, for
component manufacturers to test and qualify components for such low-GWP
refrigerants, and for manufacturers to gain the technical knowledge
necessary to successfully implement those refrigerants. Hence, we
foresee that additional equipment using similar low-GWP refrigerants,
and using components that are expected to become available, could be
similarly transitioned in a similar amount of time as finalized for
those other end-use categories.
v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    EPA is not aware of any energy conservation standards issued by DOE
that apply to refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment.
EPA also understands that food safety and sanitation standards, such as
those from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF), as well as product safety standards, such
as those from UL, apply.
vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on the refrigerant(s) used for equipment
in this end-use category, and detailed descriptions of the functions
and why a particular refrigerant is used. We also seek comment on the
applicability, technical feasibility, research, development and use of
HCs, HFC/HFO blends, R-744 or other low-GWP alternatives for equipment
within this end-use category. Additionally, we request comment on
applicable standards for equipment used in the United States as well as
those that apply to products that are pre-charged with refrigerant and
exported to other countries and specifically request comment on how
those standards may affect when equipment can be transitioned away from
the alternatives we are proposing to list as unacceptable. Likewise, we
request comment on DOE energy conservation standards and other federal
requirements that apply to this equipment.
    Additionally, EPA requests comment on any energy efficiency
performance impacts of using the refrigerants not subject to the change
of status proposed today that could affect the ability of manufacturers
to meet current energy efficiency requirements or standards for
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment in the United
States. Also, EPA requests comment on the ability of refrigerated food
processing and dispensing equipment using refrigerants other than those
for which we are proposing a status change to meet those energy
efficiency requirements or standards. In particular, we request comment
on the specific steps and timing of such steps required to design and
develop refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment to meet
applicable federal energy efficiency requirements.
    EPA requests detailed comment on the proposed decision to change
the status of the identified substitutes to unacceptable on January 1,
2021, and on the specific steps that must be undertaken for
refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment with alternative
refrigerants to be available, including the time each such step would
take, which steps must occur in sequence, and which steps could occur
in parallel. EPA requests comments on if and how this timing might vary
based on the characteristics of the equipment. Such characteristics
could include, but are not limited to, compressor type, condenser
design (e.g., air cooled or water cooled), refrigeration capacity,
intended dispensing rate (e.g., short-term rush dispensing or steady
dispensing over longer time), and refrigerant currently used and
potentially used.
    Additionally, EPA requests comment on our description of this end-
use category to ensure it is sufficiently understood particularly by
those in the equipment manufacturing and equipment servicing industry.
For example, are there other technical factors that should be used to
describe this end-use category? In particular, do such factors describe
equipment types that are sufficiently distinct such that they are
better described as two separate end-use categories (e.g., processing/
dispensing and dispensing-only)?

e. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
    As provided in the following table, EPA is proposing to change the
status of numerous refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable for new
household refrigerators and freezers:

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

i. What is the affected end-use?
    Household refrigerators, freezers and combination refrigerator/
freezers are intended primarily for residential use, although they may
be used outside the home. The designs and refrigeration capacities of
equipment vary widely. Household refrigerators and freezers are
composed of three main categories of equipment. Household freezers only
offer storage space at freezing temperatures, while household
refrigerators only offer storage space at non-freezing temperatures.
Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most
common. In addition to the most common types, other small refrigerated
household appliances exist (i.e., chilled kitchen drawers, wine
coolers, and mini-fridges). Household refrigerators and freezers have
all refrigeration components integrated, and for the smallest types,
the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded. These systems
are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically require only
an electricity supply to begin operation.
    The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration provides an overview of
food preservation in regards to household refrigerators and freezers.
Generally, a storage temperature between 32 and 39 [deg]F (0 to 3.9
[deg]C) is desirable for preserving fresh food. Humidity and higher or
lower temperatures are more suitable for certain foods and beverages.
Wine chillers, for example, are frequently used for storing wine, and
have slightly higher optimal temperatures from 45 to 65 [deg]F (7.2 to
18.3 [deg]C). Freezers and combination refrigerator-freezers that are
designed to store food for long durations have temperatures below 8
[deg]F (-13.3 [deg]C) and are designed to hold temperatures near 0 to 5
[deg]F (-17.7 to -15 [deg]C). In single-door refrigerators, the optimum
conditions for food preservation are typically warmer than this due to
the fact that food storage is not intended for long-term storage.
    The following alternatives are currently acceptable for new
household refrigerators and freezers: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-
152a, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
290, R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-
422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-507A, R-600a, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. Of
those, R-290, R-441A and R-600a are acceptable subject to use
conditions.
    Currently, the most commonly used refrigerant in the United States
for household refrigerators and freezers is R-134a, a HFC with a GWP of
1,430. However, throughout many parts of the world, R-600a with a GWP
of 8 is the most commonly used refrigerant and there are ongoing
efforts to help facilitate the adoption and continued use of R-600a in
this industry.\127\ The European Union (EU) banned the use of HFCs with
a GWP greater than 150 (which includes R-134a) for household
refrigerators and freezers as of January 1, 2015.\128\ R-600a has been
used in Europe for approximately two decades. Throughout parts of Asia,
Africa, and South America, R-600a is the dominant refrigerant for this
end-use. In its 2014 assessment report,\129\ the TEAP's RTOC projects
that by 2020 about 75 percent of new household refrigerators globally
will use R-600a, a small percentage will use HFOs, and the rest will
use HFC-134a. There are other alternatives that can be considered too.
EPA also listed R-450A and R-513A as acceptable for use in this end-use
(79 FR 62863, October 21, 2014; 80 FR 42053, July 16, 2015,
respectively). As noted in the preamble to those Notices of
Acceptability, both R-450A and R-513A were designed to match the
characteristics and performance of HFC-134a and therefore we conclude
that they may be under consideration by manufacturers as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ ORNL, 2015. ORNL's JUMP Challenge: JUMP in to Advance Tech
Innovation! Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. November 17, 2015.
    \128\ EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated
greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006.
Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2<IP_ADDRESS>5.01.ENG.
    \129\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. Available
at: http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20available%20in%20English%20only/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA previously found a number of flammable HC refrigerants
including R-290, R-441A and R-600a as acceptable, subject to use
conditions in household refrigerators and freezers (76 FR 78832,
December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). Hydrocarbon
refrigerants have been in use for over 20 years in countries such as
Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in Domestic
Refrigeration. Accessible at: http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA is proposing to
change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to
unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-
421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A,
R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.

iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other
refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    For new household refrigerators and freezers, acceptable
refrigerants for which we are not proposing a change of status in this
end-use include: HFC-152a, IKON A, IKON B, and THR-02; two HFC/HFO
blends R-513A and R-450A; and HC refrigerants R-290, R-441A and R-600a.
    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; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \131\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for acceptable alternatives for new household refrigerators and
freezers may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    The refrigerants we are finding unacceptable through this action
also have zero ODP, but they have GWPs ranging from 920 to 3,990. As
shown in Table 14, other alternatives, some of which are acceptable
subject to use conditions, have GWP ranging from three to 630.

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

    Three substitutes that remain acceptable subject to use conditions,
R-290, R-600a, and R-441A, are or are composed primarily of VOC. EPA's
analysis indicates that their use as refrigerants in this end-use are
not expected to contribute significantly to ground level ozone
formation.\132\ In the actions where EPA listed these refrigerants as
acceptable subject to use conditions, EPA concluded none of these
refrigerants in this end-use pose significantly greater risk to ground-
level ozone formation than other alternative refrigerants that are not
VOCs or that are specifically excluded from the definition of VOC under
CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of
SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The refrigerants not subject to the proposed status change are
highly volatile and typically evaporate or partition to air, rather
than contaminating surface waters. Their effects on aquatic life are
expected to be small and pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem
effects than those of other refrigerants that are subject to the
proposed status change for this end-use.
(b) Flammability
    For household refrigerators and freezers, with the exception of
HFC-152a, R-290, R-600a and R-441A, all other refrigerants listed as
acceptable, including those for which we are proposing to change the
status to unacceptable, are not flammable. The HCs R-290 and R-600a are
classified as Class A3 (lower toxicity, higher flammability)
refrigerants under the standard ASHRAE 34 (2013) while HFC-152a is
classified as Class A2 (lower toxicity, lower flammability). To address
flammability, EPA listed these HCs as acceptable, subject to use
conditions. The use conditions include conditions consistent with
industry standards, limits on charge size, and requirements for
warnings and markings on equipment to inform consumers and technicians
of potential flammability hazards. Our assessment and listing decisions
(76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011 and FR 80 1954; April 10, 2015) found
that the overall risk, including the risk due to flammability with the
use conditions, is not significantly greater than for other
refrigerants at that time and likewise are not significantly greater
than for the refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable. EPA
found HFC-152a acceptable for new household refrigerators and freezers
in the original SNAP rule indicating ``[a]lthough HFC-152a is
flammable, a risk assessment demonstrated it could be used safely in
this end-use'' (59 FR 13081; March 18, 1994).
(c) Toxicity
    Toxicity is not a significant concern for the refrigerants we are
proposing to list as unacceptable. Their toxicity is comparable to that
of other alternatives that are acceptable in this end-use. The
refrigerants subject to the proposed status change and the refrigerants
not subject to the proposed status change, if listed under ASHRAE 34
(2013), are classified as A refrigerants (lower toxicity).
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several alternatives that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the refrigerants
whose status we are proposing to change to unacceptable. The risks
other than GWP are not significantly different for the alternatives
than for the refrigerants we

are proposing to list as unacceptable, and the GWPs for the
refrigerants we are proposing to list as unacceptable are significantly
higher and thus pose significantly greater risk.
iv. When would the status change?
    EPA is proposing a change of status date for new household
refrigerators and freezers of January 1, 2021, by this date the Agency
believes the technical challenges can be met for a safe and smooth
transition to alternatives, particularly considering the likely use of
alternatives that are acceptable subject to use conditions such as
isobutane or propane. As noted above, most experts, including the TEAP,
anticipate the majority of the household refrigeration market will use
HC refrigerants globally and EPA does not have information suggesting
anything different for the United States. Although some models may be
able to transition in compliance with use conditions required for
alternatives earlier, the Agency believes that most can transition by
2021.
    EPA recognizes that manufacturers will need time to continue
product design work for alternative refrigerants, drawing from current
models used both in the United States and elsewhere. Household
refrigerators are subject to DOE energy conservation standards and will
need to be tested to demonstrate compliance with those standards. We
understand that there may be limitations with regards to the
availability of testing facilities. If the proposed change of status
date was exceedingly ahead of the next anticipated DOE energy
conservation standard date, it could affect the availability of testing
facilities. DOE's previous energy conservation rulemaking for this end-
use was finalized in 2011 with a compliance date of September 15, 2014
(76 FR 57516; September 15, 2011). EPA anticipates that any amended
standard set by DOE for these products in an upcoming rulemaking will,
consistent with prior rulemakings, have a compliance date several years
following issuance of the standard and thus we expect that the
compliance date would be no earlier than 2020. As a result, EPA's
proposed change of status in 2021 likely would occur at approximately
the same time as a compliance date for the next future DOE energy
conservation standard for these products.
v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    DOE energy conservation standards apply to household refrigerators
and freezers, as discussed in section VI.A.4.e.iv.
vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on the proposed change of status date of
January 1, 2021. In particular, EPA requests comments on the specific
steps that must be undertaken to commercialize household refrigerators
and freezers with alternative refrigerants in the United States,
including the time each step would take, which steps must occur in
sequence, and which steps could occur in parallel. EPA requests
comments on how and if this timing might vary based on the
characteristics of the household refrigerator and freezer. Such
characteristics could include, but are not limited to, capacity range,
internal volume, design (e.g., refrigerator-only, freezer-only, or
both) and refrigerant currently used and potentially used. EPA also
requests comment on the expected availability of alternatives for such
equipment, including when products using such alternatives would be
available. EPA requests comments on how such timing is expected to be
affected by other federal rules in the future, including the
availability of testing laboratories to analyze the performance of
products with alternatives while meeting any applicable federal rules.
Additionally, EPA requests comment on any energy efficiency performance
impacts of using the refrigerants not subject to the change of status
proposed today that could affect the ability of manufacturers to meet
current energy efficiency requirements or standards for household
refrigerators and freezers in the United States. Also, EPA requests
comment on the ability of household refrigerators and freezers using
refrigerants other than those for which we are proposing a status
change to meet those energy efficiency requirements or standards. In
particular, we request comment on the specific steps and timing of such
steps required to design and develop household refrigerators and
freezers to meet applicable federal energy efficiency requirements.

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning

1. Proposed Listing of HFO-1234yf as Acceptable, Subject to Use
Conditions, for Newly Manufactured MVAC Systems
    EPA is proposing to list HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in MVAC systems for newly manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup
trucks, and complete HD vans. EPA is proposing to list HFO-1234yf as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in complete HD vans; we
also are requesting comment and information on listing HFO-1234yf as
acceptable subject, to use conditions for some incomplete HD vans. At
this time, our proposal only includes complete HD vans because we do
not have sufficient information on the potential for modifications to
OEM-installed MVAC systems of incomplete HD vans by secondary and
tertiary manufacturers and the impact of those modifications on safe
use of HFO-1234yf. The use conditions are detailed below in section
V.B.1.c, ``What are the proposed use conditions?''
2. What is the affected end-use?
    The vehicle types within the MVAC end-use that are addressed in
today's proposal include limited types of heavy-duty (HD) vehicles,
specifically, MDPVs,\133\ HD trucks, and complete HD vans.\134\ EPA has
previously listed HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to use conditions in
light-duty (LD) motor vehicles and trucks (76 FR 17490; March 29,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Defined at 40 CFR 86.1801-03.
    \134\ MVAC systems provide passenger comfort cooling for light-
duty cars and trucks, heavy-duty vehicles (large pick-ups, delivery
trucks, recreational vehicles, and semi-trucks), off-road vehicles,
buses, and rail vehicles. EPA is not addressing other types of HD
vehicles, off-road vehicles, buses, or trains in the proposed
listing decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HD vehicles are often subdivided by vehicle weight classifications,
as defined by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which
is a measure of the combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying
capacity of the truck. HD vehicles have GVWRs above 8,500. Table 15
outlines the HD vehicle weight classifications commonly used.
MDPVs,\135\ HD pickup trucks, and HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles
with GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ MDPVs are classified as HD vehicles based on their GVWR,
but due to their similarities to LD vehicles they are subject to the
GHG emissions standards established for LD trucks.

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

    The types of HD vehicles for which EPA is proposing to list HFO-
1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, are in many ways more
similar to LD vehicles, for which HFO-1234yf has already been approved
under SNAP,\136\ than they are to the HD vehicles with a higher GVWR
classification. These vehicle types are similar to LD vehicles
technologically and most are manufactured by companies with major
light-duty markets in the United States and in a similar manner to LD
vehicles.\137\ Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
(FCA) produce approximately 100 percent of HD pickup trucks and
approximately 95 percent of HD vans, with Daimler and Nissan producing
the remaining approximately five percent of HD vans.\138\ In many
cases, these types of HD vehicles are versions of their LD
counterparts.\139\ For example, the Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, and Ford
F-150 are the LD counterparts of the HD Silverado 2500/3500, Ram 2500/
3500, and Ford F-250/F-350/F-450 pickup trucks.\140\ The primary
difference between HD pickup trucks and vans and their LD counterpart
vehicles is that HD pickups and vans are occupational or work vehicles
that are designed for much higher towing and payload capabilities than
are LD pickups and vans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ HFO-1234yf is listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions for newly manufactured passenger cars and light-duty
trucks only (40 CFR part 82 subpart G).
    \137\ This is more broadly true for heavy-duty pickup trucks
than vans because every manufacturer of heavy-duty pickup trucks
also makes light-duty pickup trucks, while only some heavy-duty van
manufacturers also make light-duty vans (80 FR 40148; July 13,
2015).
    \138\ EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed
Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2.