[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46125-46166]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18494]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 151

August 6, 2014

Part VII

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198; FRL-9910-19-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS18

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to
change the status of a number of substitutes that were previously
listed as acceptable, based on information showing that other
substitutes are available for the same uses that pose lower risk
overall to human health and/or the environment. Specifically, this
action proposes to modify the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons
in various end-uses in the aerosols, refrigeration and air
conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. This action also proposes use
conditions that would restrict the use of hydrofluorocarbons to those
uses where there are not substitutes available or potentially available
that reduce overall risk to human health and/or the environment. This
action also proposes to change the status from acceptable to
unacceptable for certain hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased out of
production under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2014. EPA is
planning to hold a public hearing to take place on August 27, 2014,
starting at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East (entrance from 1201
Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC and further information will be
provided on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0198, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    D. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a
determination?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this proposed decision to modify prior SNAP
determinations?
IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?
    A. Summary of Petitions
    B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions
V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?
    A. Aerosols
    1. Background
    2. Aerosols Today
    3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
    a. What other alternatives are available?
    i. Consumer Aerosols
    ii. Technical Aerosols
    iii. Medical Aerosols
    b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
    c. When would the modified listings apply?

    d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
    B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-
Duty Motor Vehicles
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty
motor vehicles?
    3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
    C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food
refrigeration (condensing units and supermarket systems)?
    a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone
equipment?
    a. New Stand-alone Equipment
    b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment
    4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
    a. New Vending Machines
    b. Retrofit Vending Machines
    5. When would the listings change?
    6. Applicability to Service of Existing Equipment
    7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
    8. What other options is EPA considering?
    a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    b. New Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other end-uses
    D. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
    a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
    b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the
substitute foam blowing agents?
    i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
    ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
    iii. Flexible Polyurethane
    iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
    v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and
Sandwich Panels
    vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
    vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated
Boardstock
    viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
    ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
    x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
    xi. Polyolefin Foam
    xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
    c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products
containing foams?
    d. When would the listings change?
    e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-
related Applications
    f. Summary
VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?
    A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the
three HCFCs and in which end-uses?
    B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?
    1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With
Regulations Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
    2. Anticipated Effects
VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. References

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

    This notice of proposed rulemaking would change the status of
certain substitutes \1\ previously found acceptable under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. EPA is proposing to
modify the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for certain
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, and
air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives are
available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk. Per
the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the intersection
between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular end-use. This
action does not propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across
all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any
specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-free. EPA
recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, hydrofluoroolefins
(HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide
(CO2)) substitutes are potentially acceptable. Instead,
consistent with SNAP's history and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA
is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes being
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of
other available and potentially available substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
    (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2016
     HFC-125 as unacceptable;
     HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in
consumer aerosols); and
     HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
     HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year (MY)
2021; and
     The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
    (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems,
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
    (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
and R-434A as unacceptable.
    (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as
unacceptable.
    (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
     HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses;
     HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as

acceptable, except for spray foam applications; and
     The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
    In general, EPA is proposing modifications to the listings based on
the SNAP program's comparative risk framework. The sections that follow
provide the analyses supporting the proposed listing modifications and
the dates when the modified listings would apply to users of these
substitutes. In addition, EPA has prepared supporting documentation on
this rule including market characterizations, analyses of costs
associated with sector transitions, estimated benefits associated with
the transition to alternatives, and potential small business
impacts.2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The emissions reductions from this
proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to 42 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These documents are
available in the docket for commenters to review. EPA is planning to
prepare a consolidated analysis document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA is also proposing to modify the listings for
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-141b, HCFC-142b, and HCFC-22, as well as
blends that contain these substances, from acceptable to unacceptable
in aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire suppression and explosion
protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives, coatings and inks. These
modifications reflect the existing regulations promulgated under CAA
sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 CFR part 82 subparts A and C.
The modified listings would take effect 60 days following issuance of a
final rule promulgating this proposal.

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide
regarding entities likely to use the substitute whose use is regulated
by this action. If you have any questions about whether this action
applies to a particular entity,

consult the person listed in the above section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
    Do not submit confidential information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
     Follow directions-The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.

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

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

ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIHA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH 4--Methane
CO2--Carbon dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon dioxide equivalent
DOE--United States Department of Energy
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency-US
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FDA--United States Food and Drug Administration
FR--Federal Register
GHG--Greenhouse gas
Gt--Gigaton
GWP--Global warming potential
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
ICR--Information collection request
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MDI--metered dose inhaler
MVAC--Motor vehicle air conditioning
N2--Nitrogen
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NIOSH--United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OEM--Original equipment manufacturer
ODP--Ozone depletion potential
ODS--Ozone-depleting substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible exposure limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbons
ppm--Parts per million
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
REL--Recommended exposure limit
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SF 6-- Sulfur hexafluoride
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
TLV--Threshold limit value
TWA--Time-weighted average
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--Volatile organic compounds
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

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

developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

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

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

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and
safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before
introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an
alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies
to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to
introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\9\ it may also apply
to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end-users \10\
when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.
The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission
and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data.
40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a),
prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after a complete
submission has been provided to the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ``interstate commerce'' means
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
    \10\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use
conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable.\11\ 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained
below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions
can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within
the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used.
Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used
only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found
to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the
rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable
substitutes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
    \12\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other available
substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable subject to
use conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting
the associated use conditions are in violation of section 612 of the
Clean Air Act and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are
available for their specific application. EPA describes these
substitutes as ``acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.'' A person
using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in
applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use
limit is using these substitutes in violation of section 612 of the CAA
and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c).
    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \13\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal
Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
    In contrast, EPA publishes ``notices of acceptability'' to notify
the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no
restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does
not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list
substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such
listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a
substitute.
    Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA)). The ``further information'' classification does
not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the
use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding
under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply
all statements in the ``further information'' column in their use of
these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to
sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the
statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make
significant changes in existing operating practices.

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

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and based on section 612, are
discussed below.
     Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone
depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential as well
as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
     Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found
acceptable
    For substitutes to be found acceptable they must pose less risk
than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. Where
risks of a substitute would otherwise be higher than other substitutes,
EPA may find these alternatives acceptable subject to use conditions or
narrowed use limits that would manage the risk.
     Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse
    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but a few
substitutes for each end-use. Thus, the Agency will not list a
potential substitute as unacceptable unless EPA determines that the
substitute is significantly more harmful to human health or the
environment than other available or potentially available alternatives.
     Evaluate risks by use
    Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
     Provide the regulated community with information as soon
as possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable,
acceptable to use conditions or acceptable subject to narrowed use
limits in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain lists of
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
     Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies
    The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that
company's products.
     Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted
    In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes
that address any potential environmental impacts that may result from
the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For
example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use
of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP
program takes existing regulations under other programs into account
when reviewing substitutes.

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

    EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at
Sec.  82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability,
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information
including ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential
(GWP), toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
     Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the
potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The
SNAP program considers the ozone depletion potential and the 100-year
integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects.
     Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure
assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which
workers, consumers, the general population, and environmental receptors
may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are
based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available.
Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases
including:
    (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes;
    (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water;
    (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes.
     Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to
assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to
substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as:
    (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure;
    (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic
effects on the general population;
    (3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the
general population.
    When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Workplace
Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial
Hygiene Association, or Threshold Limit Values set by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. If limits for
occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not
already established, then EPA derives these values following the
Agency's peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure

information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk
characterizations.
     Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a
safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability
risk using data on:
    (1) Flash point and flammability limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/
combustibility classifications);
    (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
    (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by
independent laboratories; and
    (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
     Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also
examines other potential environmental impacts such as ecotoxicity and
local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged
to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes
are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a
potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant
(under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act subtitle C regulations.
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other available
substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current
overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially
available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by
SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have
evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human
health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

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

G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify a
determination?

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as
unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are
other substitutes currently or potentially available that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. In addition to
comparing the human health and environmental effects of other available
or potentially available substitutes for the same end-uses, we also
compare substitutes to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out
under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) and under the CAA.
    The original SNAP rule included submission requirements and
presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP
program considers in its comparative risk framework. Environmental and
human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the
particular application of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes decisions
based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA
has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for
limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions.
    In May 2013 EPA stated:

    EPA recognizes that during the nearly two- decade long history
of the SNAP program, new alternatives and new information about
alternatives have emerged. To the extent possible, EPA considers new
information and improved understanding of the risk factors for the
environment and human health in the context of the available or
potentially available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR 29035)

    It has now been about twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. In that period, the menu of available alternatives has
expanded greatly and now includes many substitutes with diverse
characteristics and effects on human health and the environment. When
the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for
consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. While the SNAP
program's initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human
health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few
substitutes to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the
class I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed class II ODS (i.e.,
HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and
were only an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the
section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use
Restriction meant a listing under the SNAP program did not convey
permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 18 rules and 28 notices expanding the menu of options for all
SNAP sectors and end-uses. Comparisons today are to a broader range of
options--both chemical and non-chemical--than at the inception of the
SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown
during the history of the program. This varies by sector and by end-
use.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regards to that information, many of the
substitute-specific actions proposed in this rule have undergone
comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of
climate change. GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our
evaluation framework, but along with all of our review criteria the
amount and quality of information has expanded.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information and

improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health.
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to
unacceptable based on information made available to EPA after a listing
was issued. For example, on January 26, 1999, EPA listed the
refrigerant known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all
refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses. EPA previously listed this
blend as an acceptable substitute in various end-uses within the
refrigeration and air conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR 30275).
Based on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in
the blend, EPA subsequently removed MT-31 from the list of acceptable
substitutes and listed it as unacceptable in all refrigeration and air
conditioning end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861).
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007 when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). These HCFCs, which are
ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
available substitutes that posed lower risk at the time of EPA's
listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and
end-uses at a time when substitutes were far more limited. In light of
the expanded availability of alternative substitutes with lower overall
risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in these end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. EPA allowed existing users to continue use
for a limited time to ensure that they could adjust their manufacturing
processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes.

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

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

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

    GWP, along with other criteria, is a factor in the overall
evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two
decades, the general science on climate change and the potential
contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change
have become better understood.
    On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued two
distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act \14\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The relevant scientific and technical information
summarized to support the Endangerment Finding and the Cause or
Contribute Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Endangerment Finding: the current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere -- CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) -- threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations.
     Cause or Contribute Finding: the combined emissions of
these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and welfare.
    Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\15\ Though they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact is very strong because they can remain
trapped in the atmosphere for up to 250+ years impacting climate change
20,000 times more powerfully than CO2, and their emissions
are projected to accelerate over the next several decades if left
unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing
more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are
increasing 10-15% annually.\16\ At that rate, emissions are projected
to double by 2020 and triple by 2030.\17\ HFCs are rapidly accumulating
in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most
abundant HFC, has increased by about 10% per year from 2006 to 2012,
and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13% and
16% per year from 2007-2011, respectively.18 19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New
York).
    \16\ UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme.
    \17\ Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
    \18\ Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
    \19\ NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4
to 9.9 Gt CO2eq in 2050 \20\, which is comparable to the
drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between
1988 and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the
atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W
m\2\. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the
expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of
CO2 since 2000, according to the IPCC's Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the significance
of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all
GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2
emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions
scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69% of CO2 emissions based
on the IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland,
S. O. Andersen (2009) The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
    \21\ HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone
Layer. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp
    \22\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA.

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

IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing
status for substitutes with a high global warming potential?

A. Summary of Petitions

    EPA received three petitions requesting EPA to modify certain
acceptability listings of HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends. The first
petition was submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) on behalf of NRDC, the Institute for Governance and
Sustainable Development (IGSD), and the Environmental Investigation
Agency-US (EIA). The petition requested that EPA remove HFC-134a from
the list of acceptable substitutes for ODS and move it to the list of
unacceptable substitutes in multiple uses. The petitioners subsequently
clarified that they were requesting this change for the use of HFC-134a
in new passenger cars and light-duty trucks, non-medical aerosols, and
for certain refrigeration and foam blowing end-uses. In support of
their petition, the petitioners identified other substitutes for use in
motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) and other sectors, and claimed
that these other substitutes present much lower risks to human health
and environment than HFC-134a.
    On February 14, 2011, EPA found the petition complete for MVAC in
new passenger cars and light-duty vehicles and determined it was
incomplete for other uses of HFC-134a. EPA noted in its response that,
at a future date, the Agency would initiate a notice-and-comment
rulemaking in response to the one complete aspect of the petition,
noting in particular that EPA would evaluate and take comment on many
factors, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for introduction
of newer substitutes for MVAC systems into the automotive market and
potential lead time for manufacturers of motor vehicles to accommodate
substitutes. This proposed rule responds to the aspect of that petition
that we found complete.
    On April 26, 2012, EPA received a petition from EIA. EIA stated
that, in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program's
evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes
are on the market or soon to be available, EPA should remove HFC-134a
and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for uses
where EPA found CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential under section 610 of
the Act. EIA also requested that the schedule for moving HFC-134a and
HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable to unacceptable substitutes
be based on the ``most rapidly feasible transitions to one or more of
the'' acceptable substitutes for each use. The petitioner noted that
initial approvals of HFC-134a for a number of end-uses occurred in the
1990s and were based on the assessment made then that (1) HFC-134a does
not contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC-134a's GWP and atmospheric
lifetime were close to those of other substitutes that had been
determined to be acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) HFC-134a is not
flammable, and its toxicity is low.\23\ The petitioner stated that the
analysis used in the listing decisions may have been appropriate in the
1990s but was no longer reflected accurately given the range of other
available or potentially available substitutes at present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to petitioning EPA for action under SNAP, the
petitioner requested that the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban be
extended to HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends for aerosols and pressurized
dispensers (including tire inflators); foam blowing agents; novelty
products (including propelled plastic party streamers, web string,
artificial snow, specialty paints and excrement ``poop'' freeze); noise
horns (including marine safety noise horns, sporting event noise horns,
personal safety noise horns, wall-mounted industrial noise horns used
as alarms in factories and other work areas, and intruder noise horns
used as alarms in homes and cars); foam and refrigerants in new
domestic refrigerators and freezers and other retail stand-alone
coolers and freezers; and cleaning fluids for noncommercial electronic,
photographic, and other equipment.
    On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the petitioner that this petition
was incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have exchanged further
correspondence that can be found in the docket. Although EPA has found
the petition incomplete, EPA's action in this proposal may be
considered responsive to certain aspects of the petitions given EPA is
proposing to change the listing of certain HFCs used in aerosols and
foams from acceptable to unacceptable for most uses, and proposing to
place use conditions on the remaining aerosol uses.
    A third petition was filed on April 27, 2012, by NRDC, EIA and
IGSD. They requested that EPA:
     Remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes
for CFC-12 in household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers;
     Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed refrigerants to all
except certified technicians with access to service tools required
under existing EPA regulations;
     Adopt a standardized procedure to determine the speed of
transition from obsolete high-GWP HFCs to next-generation alternatives
and substitutes;
     Remove, in addition to HFC-134a, all other refrigerants
with 100-year GWPs greater than 150 from the acceptable substitutes
list for household refrigerators and freezers and stand-alone retail
food refrigerators and freezers.

On August 7, 2013, EPA found this petition to be incomplete. EPA and
the petitioner have exchanged further correspondence that can be found
in the docket. Although EPA has found the petition incomplete, EPA's
action in this proposal may be considered responsive to certain aspects
of the petition, given EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-
134a from acceptable to unacceptable for new stand-alone retail food
refrigerators and freezers, as well as changing the listing of a number
of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for new and retrofit stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers.

B. How Today's Action Relates to Petitions

    This action primarily recognizes a call in the President's Climate
Action Plan announced June 2013:

    To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead
both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions . .
. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its
authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to
encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by
identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while
prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.

The Climate Action Plan also states ``to reduce emissions of HFCs, the
United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as
well as domestic actions.'' This proposed rule is part of our domestic
commitment to take action now and, by doing so, also supporting efforts
to secure a global HFC phasedown. For the past five years, the United
States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal
Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global
benefits of the proposal would yield significant reductions of over 90
gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent CO2eq through 2050. The United
States,

the European Union, Japan and other countries are all taking actions
that will promote the uptake of low-GWP alternatives and reduce use and
emissions of high-GWP HFCs.
    This proposal responds to the President's Climate Action Plan and
also addresses certain aspects of the three petitions referred to
above. First, this action responds to the one aspect of the three
petitions that EPA found complete, namely petitioners' request that EPA
change the listing of HFC-134a from acceptable to unacceptable in new
MVACs. (See section V.B. in today's notice.) While EPA found all
remaining issues in the three petitions incomplete with respect to the
other end-uses, EPA has independently acquired sufficient information
to address certain other requests made by the petitioners regarding
listing high GWP HFCs as unacceptable. Specifically, based on our
review of the aerosols, foams, and air conditioning and refrigeration
sectors, we are proposing to revise the listings for a number of
substitutes from acceptable to acceptable subject to use conditions, or
unacceptable. (See sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today's notice.)
These substitutes have high GWPs as compared with other available or
potentially available substitutes in those end-uses and pose
significantly greater risk overall to human health and the environment.
EPA considers the intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend
and the particular end-use. This action does not propose that any
specific HFC be unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is
also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable
substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g.,
HFCs, HFOs and non-fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes
are potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and
Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA is proposing these modifications,
and will consider future modifications, based on the substitutes being
considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current suite of
other available and potentially available substitutes in specific
sectors and end-uses.
    EPA recently issued a proposed rule (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811)
that would list as acceptable subject to use conditions a group of
refrigeration and air-conditioning alternatives that have been
submitted and reviewed under the SNAP program. That rule would enhance
the SNAP menu of acceptable alternatives for a number of related end-
uses by proposing to add several alternatives as acceptable subject to
use conditions.
    As noted previously, to date, EPA has considered approximately 400
alternatives. This level of development work serves as a clear
demonstration of the efforts of industry to commercialize alternatives
that continue to reduce overall risk and meet the needs of a wide range
of consumers.
    Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated
community on the SNAP related aspects of the President's Climate Action
Plan, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role
that certainty plays in enabling this robust development and uptake of
alternatives. Unfortunately, some of the key strengths of the SNAP
program, such as its chemical and end-use specific consideration, its
multi criteria basis for action, and its petition process tend to
militate against some measures that could provide more certainty, such
as bright line cut offs. That being said we do believe that the
proposals we are making today, and future proposals we may make, may
provide some guidelines on how EPA intends to apply specific criteria
in individual end-uses. In addition, we remain committed to continuing
our outreach efforts and to sharing our thinking at the earliest moment
practicable on any future actions we might consider. Finally, and as it
relates to potential future actions that that EPA might consider under
the SNAP program, the Agency continues to welcome comments and ideas on
measures we might consider within the SNAP context to provide greater
certainty to both producers and consumers in SNAP regulated industrial
sectors.

V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable for certain HFCs and HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing,
and air conditioning and refrigerant end-uses where other alternatives
are available or potentially available that pose overall lower risk.
Per the guiding principle stated above, EPA is considering the
intersection between the specific HFC or HFC blend and the particular
end-use. This action does not propose that any specific HFCs be
unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing
that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are HFC-
free. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non-
fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes are potentially
acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP's history and CAA Section
612, EPA is proposing these modifications based on the substitutes
being considered, the SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the current
suite of other available and potentially available substitutes.
    EPA is proposing to modify the following listings by end-use:
    (1) For aerosol propellants, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2016
     HFC-125 as unacceptable;
     HFC-134a as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in specific types of technical and medical
aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) (and prohibiting its use in
consumer aerosols); and
     HFC-227ea as acceptable, subject to use conditions,
allowing its use only in metered dose inhalers.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning systems in newly
manufactured light-duty vehicles, we are proposing to list
     HFC-134a as unacceptable starting with model year MY 2021;
and
     The refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A (also known as RS-
24), R-416A (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12), R-406A, R-
414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (also known as
HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze
12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP) as
unacceptable starting with MY 2017.
    (3) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
stand-alone equipment, condensing units, direct supermarket systems,
and indirect supermarket systems) and new and retrofit vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     The HFC blends R-507A and R-404A as unacceptable.
    (4) For new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (including
direct supermarket systems and indirect supermarket systems), we are
proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-227ea, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A,
and R-434A as unacceptable.
    (5) For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration and new vending
machines, we are proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016
     HFC-134a and certain other HFC refrigerant blends as
unacceptable.
    (6) For foam blowing agents, we are proposing to list, as of
January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a narrowed use limit,
     HFC-134a and blends thereof as unacceptable in all foam-
blowing end-uses;
     HFC-143a, HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc and blends thereof, and
the HFC blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z-6 as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where they are currently listed as acceptable, except
for spray foam applications; and

     The HFC blend Formacel TI as unacceptable in all foam
blowing end-uses where it is currently listed as acceptable.
    In general, the dates in this proposal for modifying the SNAP
listings are based on information concerning the availability of
alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the
environment for the end-uses considered. EPA is requesting comment on
the proposed dates. As noted in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
discussion in section IX of this preamble, EPA would like information
on technical challenges that may exist. EPA is particularly interested
in information concerning the supply of substitutes in sufficient
quantities to meet the dates proposed in this action. EPA notes that
several of the end-uses could be broken down further. EPA could
consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits for a specific
application of an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes
would be available for all but that specific application as of a
particular date. For other applications in that end-use, the rule would
list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific
application at issue, the rule could contain both a temporary narrowed
use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon
the expiration of the narrowed use limit. While the temporary narrowed
use limit was in place, only persons using a substitute in the end-use
for that specific application would be considered to not be in
violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR
82.174(c)). In addition, any such end user would need to comply with
the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other
alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use.
To support the adoption of a temporary narrowed use limit for a
specific application of an end-use in the final rule, commenters should
explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific
application of that end-use and for what period of time.
    In determining whether to modify the listing decisions for
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among
other things: scientific findings, information provided by the
Technology and Economic Assessment Panel that supports the Montreal
Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the
regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings,
presentations and reports presented at domestic and international
conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional
organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in
the docket for this action. Key references are highlighted in section
IX of today's notice.

A. Aerosols

1. Background
    The SNAP program provides listings for two aerosol end-uses:
propellants and solvents. Aerosols typically use a liquefied or
compressed gas to propel active ingredients in liquid, paste, or powder
form. In the case of duster sprays used to blow dust and contaminants
off of surfaces, the propellant is also itself the active ingredient.
Some aerosols also contain a solvent, which may be used in
manufacturing, maintenance and repair to clean off oil, grease, and
other soils.
    Historically, a variety of propellants and solvents have been
available to formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) and compressed
gases (e.g., CO2, N2, N2O, compressed
air) have long been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, the aerosol
industry predominantly used CFCs. CFCs were excellent propellants
because of their ability to produce a fine spray, their non-
flammability, their ability to be stored under low pressure, and their
low reactivity with other ingredients. In 1978, in response to evidence
regarding depletion of the earth's ozone layer, the United States
banned CFC propellants. These regulations did not address HCFCs or
solvent uses. For example, CFC-113 and methyl chloroform continued to
be used as solvents in aerosols and HCFCs continued to be used.
    Many consumer products that previously used CFC propellants were
reformulated or replaced with a variety of alternatives, including not-
in-kind substitutes, such as pump sprays or solid and roll-on
deodorants. Aerosol propellant substitutes included HCFCs, HCs, HFCs,
compressed gases, and oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs are
controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol and subject to
regulation under the CAA including a phaseout of production and import
under section 605(b)-(c) and use restrictions under section 605(a).
    In 1993, EPA issued regulations that implemented CAA section 610's
Congressionally mandated ban on the sale and distribution or offer for
sale and distribution of certain non-essential products containing
ozone-depleting substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). All aerosol
products and pressurized dispensers containing, or manufactured with,
CFCs and HCFCs--except those specifically exempted by the regulations--
are banned from sale and distribution in interstate commerce in the
United States. As a result of the Nonessential Products Ban, most
aerosol products have been using low-GWP alternatives with no ozone
depletion potential since the early 1990s.
2. Aerosols today
    Following the 1994 ban on the sale and distribution of aerosols
using HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced with a range of
alternatives including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-152a), HCs, compressed
gases, and not-in-kind alternatives. HCFC solvents were replaced by
HFC-43-10mee, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HCs, oxygenated organic compounds,
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene (typically blended
with an HFC or HFE to reduce flammability of the formulation). Other
acceptable low-GWP fluorinated compounds include HFOs. HFO-1234ze(E) is
in use and under development for use in the aerosol industry as a
propellant for manufacturing aerosol products. EPA regulations issued
pursuant to CAA section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
for manufacturing aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA has proposed
regulations addressing the use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs in
aerosol products (e.g., HCFC-225ca/cb), as well as other provisions
related to the phaseout of HCFCs under section 605 of the CAA (December
24, 2013; 78 FR 78072).
    The United States aerosol industry manufactures aerosol products in
the following three categories: (1) Consumer aerosols, (2) technical
aerosols, and (3) medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols includes products
for personal and household use. Examples include personal care
products, such as: Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and deodorants;
automotive products such as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and brake
cleaners; noise horns and safety horns; animal repellants; spray
adhesives with various applications; household cleaning products; hand-
held spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard dusters; consumer freeze
sprays (e.g. chewing gum or excrement removal); air fresheners; food
dispensing products; and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial snow,
plastic string, noise makers, and cork poppers).
    Technical aerosols are aerosol products for sale and use solely in
commercial and industrial applications, not for normal day-to-day
consumer use or medical use. Technical aerosols includes industrial
cleaners (e.g.,

electronic contact cleaners, brake cleaners, flux removers,
degreasers); pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet sprays, aircraft
insecticides); a subset of dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives,
semiconductor chip manufacture, specimens for observation under
electron microscope); and spinnerette lubricant/cleaning sprays.
Technical aerosols also includes other miscellaneous products such as
industrial spray paints and document preservation sprays.
    Medical aerosols are for sale and use for medical purposes and
include, but are not limited to, products regulated by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical aerosols include metered dose
inhalers for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, calamine spray, anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound care
sprays, freeze or coolant spray for pain relief, spray-on ``liquid''
bandages, and products for removing bandage adhesives.
    Some aerosols could be considered under more than one of the
categories described above. For example, insect sprays include products
with both commercial and consumer applications. The commercial
application would include insect sprays used by utility power line
workers around high tension power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) and
the consumer use would include residential household insect repellant
commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a consumer aerosol). Another example
is freeze sprays which may be either consumer aerosols (e.g., food
freeze sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical aerosols (e.g., wart
removers, pain relievers).
    Most of the demand for consumer aerosols in the United States is
concentrated within household consumer products. This category has the
highest production volume, reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to 2011
(CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that includes many personal care products
(325620) is the highest grossing NAICS category of those that EPA has
identified as manufacturing consumer aerosols (ICF 2014a). Some of the
dominant consumer aerosols includes air fresheners, deodorants,
household cleaners, and hairspray.
3. What is EPA proposing concerning aerosols?
    Today's action addresses HFCs in propellants in aerosols. EPA is
proposing to modify the listings for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as
of January 1, 2016 as follows:
     EPA is proposing to change the listing for the aerosol
propellant HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable.
     We are proposing to list the aerosol propellant HFC-134a
as acceptable, subject to use conditions allowing its use only in the
following: Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other
soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants for
electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft maintenance;
pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total release
insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use pesticides for which
EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants; mold
release agents; lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic
fabrics; duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from
photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and specimens under
electron microscopes; document preservation sprays; metered dose
inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols can be
used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs; wound
care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products
for removing bandage adhesives from skin.
     EPA is also proposing to list HFC-227ea as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, allowing its use only in metered dose
inhalers.
    a. What other alternatives are available?
    EPA is proposing to change the listing decisions for HFC-125, HFC-
134a, and HFC-227ea as of January 1, 2016 because safer alternatives
(i.e., chemical compounds and technological options) are available or
potentially available that reduces the overall risk to human health and
the environment. Other substitutes listed as acceptable propellants
include HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane,
CO2 and other compressed gases, and dimethyl ether (DME). In
addition, technological options include not-in-kind alternatives such
as finger/trigger pumps, powder formulations, sticks, rollers, brushes,
and wipes. These alternatives have GWPs ranging from zero to 124
compared with HFC-134a's GWP of 1,430, HFC-227ea's GWP of 3,220 and
HFC-125's GWP of 3,500.\24\ All of these alternatives have an ODP of
zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and are capable of remaining
below their respective exposure limits when used as aerosol
propellants. In addition to GWP and climate impacts, some of the other
environmental and health attributes that the SNAP program considers
that differ for these alternatives include impacts on local air quality
and flammability. For example, butane, propane, isobutane, and DME are
VOCs as well as being flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, and DME
are defined as VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s))
addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to
attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards; thus,
these propellants are subject to federal, state, and local regulation
that may prevent their use as a propellant in aerosols in some states
and counties that have nonattainment areas for ground-level ozone. HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and the compressed
gases CO2 and N2 are not defined as VOCs under
these regulations and their use is expected to have negligible impact
on ground-level ozone levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ GWP values cited in this proposal are from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated otherwise. Where no GWP is
listed in AR4, GWP values shall be determined consistent with the
calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and referenced materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Consumer Aerosols
    For consumer aerosols, there are three alternatives with lower GWPs
that meet other environmental regulatory requirements: HFC-152a, which
has a GWP of 124; HFO-1234ze(E) with a GWP of 6; and CO2
with a GWP of 1. All three have GWPs significantly lower than those of
the HFCs proposed to be unacceptable or subject to use conditions
(range of GWPs from 1430 to 3500 for HFC-134a, HFC-227ea and HFC-125).
These three substitutes also provide a range of performance based on
vapor pressure, which is important because it affects the ability to
propel the necessary ingredients out of the aerosol container. The
vapor pressures of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and CO2 at 20
[deg]C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
ii. Technical Aerosols
    Technical aerosols sometimes need to meet more rigorous
requirements for selection because of performance demands that do not
exist for most consumer aerosols. For example, nonflammable aerosols
are needed for use on energized electrical circuits, where sparking can
create a fire or explosion hazard. Of the different acceptable
alternatives, the nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFO-1234ze(E) and compressed gases including
CO2 and N2. At slightly higher temperatures (30
[deg]C or 85 [deg]F), HFO-1234ze(E) exhibits lower and higher
flammability limits and

could catch fire under specific conditions of concentration and in the
presence of a high energy spark or flame. Some aerosol product
formulators have expressed concern that the lower vapor pressure of
HFO-1234ze(E) and the significantly higher vapor pressure of
CO2 and other compressed gases may not provide adequate
performance in propelling contents of a can or in remaining within the
can for technical aerosols. For comparison, the vapor pressures of HFO-
1234ze(E), HFC-134a, and CO2 at 20 [deg]C are 422 kPa, 655
kPa, and 5776 kPa, respectively.
    The conditions under which technical aerosols are often used
requires non-flammability and/or specific vapor pressure be met. Based
on the information available today, EPA believes it is necessary to
continue to allow for HFC-134a to be used for certain technical spray
applications because of these technical limitations. We are therefore
proposing to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions
which would limit use to those specific applications.
    HFC-134a is the propellant with the lowest GWP that can
consistently meet the technical aerosol performance requirements, other
environmental regulatory requirements, and is nonflammable. EPA
considered whether HFC-227ea or HFC-125 should be continue to be listed
as acceptable for any specific uses. However, both these HFCs have
significantly higher GWPs than HFC-134a (HFC-227ea's GWP is 3220 and
HFC-125's GWP is 3500). Moreover, EPA is not aware of the use of HFC-
227ea in technical aerosols. Similarly, EPA is not aware of any
significant use of HFC-125 in technical aerosols. Neither HFC-227ea nor
HFC-125 provides greater reduction in health or environmental risk than
HFC-134a.
iii. Medical Aerosols
    EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as acceptable
subject to use conditions which specify that these two HFCs are
acceptable for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to ensure that there is no
confusion about the ability to continue to use these HFCs in these
medical aerosols. In addition, we are proposing to list HFC-134a as
acceptable subject to use conditions for wound care sprays, for topical
coolant sprays for pain alleviation and for products for removing
bandage adhesives from skin. For medical aerosols, there are special
needs for safety and low toxicity. Furthermore, in order for a
substitute to be available for use in medical devices, it must first be
reviewed and approved by the FDA. FDA has approved medications for use
in metered dose inhalers using HFC-134a and HFC-227ea as propellants,
as well as some not-in-kind dry powder medications.
    FDA has not approved medications for MDIs or other medical aerosols
using HFC-125. EPA is aware of some medical aerosols that are currently
using hydrocarbons or DME as the propellant, as well as not-in-kind
alternatives; these medical aerosols include antifungals, calamine
sprays, freeze sprays for wart removal, and liquid bandages (ICF,
2014a). EPA has insufficient information that alternatives other than
HFC-134a are available as propellants in wound care sprays; topical
coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and products for removing bandage
adhesives from skin. Therefore, we cannot conclude that these are
available alternatives with less overall risk to human health and the
environment than HFC-134a. For these reasons, we are proposing to list
HFC-227ea as acceptable subject to a use condition limiting its use to
MDIs and to list HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions
limiting its use to MDIs and the other medical uses listed above.
    HFC-125 has a GWP of 3,500, which is higher than the GWP of all
other alternatives that are available for use as aerosol propellants
(HFC-227ea has a GWP of 3220; HFC-134 has a GWP of 1430; HFO-1234ze(E)
has a GWP of 6). Like HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, CO2 and HFO-
1234ze(E), it is VOC-exempt, nonflammable and low in toxicity. When EPA
listed HFC-227ea as acceptable (May 22, 1998; 63 FR 28251), EPA noted
that it was doing so despite the relatively high GWP of this compound,
because it fit a specialized application, metered dose inhalers, where
other substitutes were not available that would provide acceptable
performance.
    EPA's proposed approach to restricting the use of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea only to manufacturing certain specific types of aerosol products
is modeled upon the Nonessential Product Ban exemptions for ODS in
subpart C of 40 CFR part 82. A difference between that ban and the
proposed use conditions is that the Nonessential Products Ban addressed
the sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of aerosol
products in interstate commerce, whereas this proposal addresses the
propellants that may be used in manufacturing aerosol products.
    Today, EPA is proposing to list HFC-125 as unacceptable, HFC-227ea
as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use only for MDIs
and HFC-134a as acceptable subject to use conditions allowing its use
only for specific technical and medical aerosols, including MDIs. We
request comment on this approach to modifying the listings of these
three HFCs. We also request comment on whether any of the proposed
technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a should not be allowed or whether
there are additional uses that should be added to the list of allowed
uses under the use conditions. Through this action, EPA is not
intending to alter the listing as acceptable for HFC-227ea and HFC-134a
for metered dose inhalers. EPA is seeking comment on the additional
medical and technical aerosol uses of HFC-134a.
b. What other approaches is EPA considering?
    EPA is considering two approaches to changing the listings for
aerosols and seeks comments on both. The first, as discussed above, is
to find HFC-125 unacceptable and find HFC-227ea and HFC-134a acceptable
subject to use conditions, where the use conditions specify a list of
allowed uses or product types that may continue to use these HFCs
(e.g., metered dose inhalers for both HFCs, insect sprays used near
high tension power lines for HFC-134a). A second approach we are
considering is to find HFC-125 unacceptable and to find HFC-134a
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in technical and medical
aerosols and HFC-227ea subject to narrowed use limits in metered dose
inhalers. Narrowed use limits are considered ``use restrictions'' and
are explained above. In this case, only persons using HFC-227ea in
metered dose inhalers or using HFC-134a in technical or medical
aerosols would be considered to not be in violation of section 612 of
the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The terms
``technical aerosol'' and ``medical aerosol'' would apply to the types
of aerosols described above in section 2. ``Aerosols today.'' Under the
narrowed use limits, a manufacturer or other user intending to use the
substitute could only use HFC-134a in manufacturing a technical or
medical aerosol, or HFC-227ea in manufacturing a metered-dose inhaler,
after ascertaining that other alternatives are not technically
feasible. The user also would be required to document their evaluation.
40 CFR 82.180(b)(3).
    Advantages to the proposed approach of specifying the allowed uses
are that the list is clear about which products are allowed to use HFC-
134a or HFC-227ea, both for users and for EPA. In addition, because EPA
is specifying the uses in advance, end-users would not be

required to perform an evaluation and would not be required keep
paperwork to document their evaluation, thereby reducing regulatory
burden. A potential advantage of setting narrowed use limits is that it
may encourage a larger number of manufacturers and users to evaluate
alternatives and potentially identify more uses where HFC-134a is not
required. Further, establishing narrowed use limits may allow greater
flexibility if there are additional types of technical or medical
aerosol products with performance or safety constraints requiring HFC-
134a that EPA has not identified in this proposal. EPA requests comment
on these two approaches to modifying the listings of HFC-134a and HFC-
227ea as aerosol propellants.
    c. When would the modified listings apply?
    EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as the date on which the listings
for HFC-125, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea would be modified. Thus products
manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 in contravention of the
unacceptable or acceptable subject to use conditions listing for these
substitutes could not be used.
    We are proposing this date because we believe it is expeditious but
will allow sufficient time after this proposed rule for end users to
make the transition to alternatives. Based on the information available
to EPA today and on various discussions with industry representatives.
EPA believes that formulators and packagers of aerosols can make the
necessary changes within this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, 2014). In
most cases, EPA believes it will take approximately six months for the
necessary changes to be made. This timing would provide the affected
aerosol manufacturers and packagers sufficient time to change and test
formulations and, to the extent necessary, to change the equipment in
their factories.
    To prevent stranded inventory, we are proposing that products
manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 using these propellants, could be
still be sold, imported, exported, and used by the end user after
January 1, 2016. This would avoid the possibility that end users would
need to dispose of a usable product, including the potential for
improper releases of the content into the environment.
d. On which topics is EPA requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on the proposal to change the listing for the
following aerosol propellants: HFC-125 from acceptable to unacceptable;
HFC-134a from acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions
allowing its use only in: cleaning products for removal of grease, flux
and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics; lubricants
for electrical equipment or electronics; sprays for aircraft
maintenance; pesticides for use near electrical wires, in aircraft, in
total release insecticide foggers, or in certified organic use
pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-
GWP propellants; mold release agents; lubricants and cleaners for
spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; duster sprays specifically for
removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, and
specimens under electron microscopes; document preservation sprays;
metered dose inhalers for the treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, and other diseases where aerosols
can be used for systemic delivery through lung, nose, or other organs;
wound care sprays; topical coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and
products for removing bandage adhesives from skin; and HFC-227ea from
acceptable to acceptable, subject to use conditions, allowing its use
only in metered dose inhalers.
    EPA also received suggestions from the aerosol industry to consider
an exception to allow the use of HFC-134a in additional categories of
aerosol products. EPA is not proposing to include these categories,
either because we are aware of existing products in these categories
using low GWP propellants, or because we have insufficient information
indicating that the use of HFC-134a is necessary for these categories
of products because other substitutes that pose lower risk are not
currently or potentially available. These categories include: component
freeze sprays, tissue freezes, refrigeration system flushes, portable
safety horns for use in marine and industrial applications, tire
inflators, and personal defense sprays. We are aware of low-GWP
formulations already on the market today for defensive sprays and
tissue freezes. These formulations may use flammable and/or non-
flammable propellants. We request information on why available
substitutes other than HFC-134a are not and cannot be used in these
categories of products, including information on why flammability may
be a concern or not in the product category; whether other alternative
propellants with lower GWP in place of HFC-134a have been tested in
these products; and what results of those tests have shown about the
technical feasibility and/or safety of the other alternative
propellants.
    Finally, we request comments on modifying the listings as of
January 1, 2016. We request commenters include specific information on
whether it would be technically feasible for end-users to transition by
January 1, 2016, and, if not, what steps are necessary for
manufacturers to switch to other alternatives and how long those steps
are expected to take.

B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for Newly Manufactured Light-Duty
Motor Vehicles

1. Background
    MVAC systems cool passenger cars, light duty trucks, buses, and
rail vehicles. CFC-12 refrigerant was historically used in MVAC
systems. HFC-134a replaced CFC-12 in new equipment in the early 1990s.
Today, HFC-134a is the dominant refrigerant used in light-duty vehicles
worldwide. When EPA found HFC-134a acceptable in MVAC for light duty
vehicles in 1994 (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the Agency stated:

HFC-134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC-134a's GWP and
atmospheric lifetime are close to those of other alternatives which
have been determined to be acceptable for this end-use. However,
HFC-134a's contribution to global warming could be significant in
leaky end-uses such as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use of
HFC-134a in these applications is acceptable because industry
continues to develop technology to limit emissions. In addition, the
number of substitutes available for use in MVACs is currently
limited. HFC-134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low.

This analysis was consistent with the information available in 1994.
Since that time, four additional substitutes have been added to the
list of substitutes that are acceptable subject to use conditions for
light duty vehicles. As described more fully below, if these other
substitutes are used in systems designed consistent with the prescribed
use conditions, they pose significantly lower risk to human health and
the environment than HFC-134a. EPA is therefore proposing to remove
HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes for new light-duty
vehicles' MVAC systems and add it to the list of unacceptable
substitutes.
    Since 1994, additional alternatives for MVACs have been listed as
acceptable subject to use conditions.\25\ Three of these alternatives--
HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide (R-744)--are non-ozone
depleting like HFC-134a and have low GWPs compared to HFC-134a. HFC-
152a has a GWP of 124, HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R-744 (by

definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430. R-744 is
nonflammable, HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are flammable, but are subject to
use conditions that address flammability concerns. All three
substitutes are subject to use restrictions that ensure exposure limits
that protect against adverse health effects will not be exceeded and
all three are VOC exempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time EPA listed HFC-134a as acceptable, the agency was not
aware of any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC supplier, or chemical producer
considering HFO-1234yf as a refrigerant. Today, HFO-1234yf is in use in
MVAC systems in approximately nine \26\ models in the United States by
several manufacturers of light-duty vehicles. EPA expects additional
models will be introduced using HFO-1234yf systems over the next
several years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To date, at least one global manufacturer of light-duty vehicles
has announced their intention to commercialize vehicles using R-744 in
MVAC systems later this decade.\27\ In the mid-1990s, EPA became aware
that R-744 systems might be a feasible alternative in this application,
but the state of research and development indicated that it was not yet
available because a design had not yet been developed that would allow
safe use in MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. Nearly 20 years later,
EPA is still not aware of current commercial use of R-744 in MVAC
systems. However, significant research and development is occurring in
order to ensure R-744 can be used safely in MVAC systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Daimler, 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744, EPA is aware of
ongoing research and development which could ultimately result in
future listings of additional alternatives for MVAC systems. One
chemical producer indicated their intent to seek SNAP approval for
another low-GWP alternative that is a blend with a GWP below 150.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Mexichem statement during motor vehicle stakeholder meeting
December 6, 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are also other blends which EPA has listed as acceptable or
acceptable subject to use conditions. None of these are currently used
by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Several of these
previously listed substitutes have GWPs that are significantly higher
than the GWPS for HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744 and higher overall
risk than these other three substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as
unacceptable the following substitutes in addition to HFC-134a: SP34E
(GWP of 1300), R-426A (also known as RS-24) (GWP of 1508), R-416A (also
known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP of 1015) and the HCFC
blends, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as
GHG-HP), with GWPs ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs ranging from
0.012 to 0.056. For simplicity, we refer to these substitutes as ``the
refrigerant blends'' in the following discussion.
2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HFC-134a and use of
refrigerant blends in MVAC systems for newly manufactured light-duty
motor vehicles?
    EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable for use in MVAC
systems in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning with MY
2021. We are proposing MY 2021 because that is the time by which all
light-duty vehicle models can be redesigned to safely use MVAC systems
using other available refrigerants. As explained above, three
alternatives on the SNAP list of acceptable substitutes subject to use
conditions --HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf--have significantly lower
GWPs than HFC-134a. All three of these lower-GWP alternatives are non-
ozone depleting and are subject to use restrictions that ensure
exposure limits that protect against adverse health effects will not be
exceeded. All three are VOC exempt. HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a are
flammable, but are subject to use conditions that address flammability
concerns. R-744 is not flammable. Because HFC-134a has a significantly
higher GWP than HFC-152a, R-744, and HFO-1234yf and because the risks
posed by these three refrigerants are addressed through use conditions,
we are proposing to list HFC-134a as unacceptable. However, because the
three refrigerant alternatives pose lower risk than HFC-134a only if
used consistent with the established use conditions, in deciding when
the unacceptability determination should apply, we considered the date
by which automobile manufacturers will be able to redesign all vehicle
models (including design of the MVAC systems) consistent with the use
conditions.
    EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as
GHG-HP) as unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for use in MVAC systems in
newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. Since these refrigerant
blends are not currently in use in any MVAC systems in light-duty
vehicles, we believe it is appropriate for the unacceptability
determination to apply to model year vehicles currently being designed.
Further, all but the first two of these blends have ODPs, and all have
significantly higher GWPs than other alternatives such as HFC-152a,
HFO-1234yf, and CO2.
    EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be
able to transition their fleets to lower GWP refrigerants in its rules
to extend the greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for model year
(MY) 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, 62807-810 (October 15,
2012); see also 75 FR 25325, 25431-32 (May 7, 2010) (discussing the
same issue for MY 2012-2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued these rules on
August 28, 2012. Over the lifetime of the MY 2017-2025 light-duty
vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles), these rules are projected to save approximately 4 billion
barrels of oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG emissions, with
societal net benefits up to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The standards
build off those set in April 2010 for MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles,
which are projected to save approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil
and 962 million metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetime of the
affected vehicles, with societal net benefits of up to $192 billion. 75
FR 25347. EPA projects that the entire light-duty vehicle fleet will
meet a target of 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 mpg if the automotive
industry meets the target exclusively through fuel efficiency
improvements).
    When refrigerants leak from current motor vehicle air conditioning
systems, they contribute to overall GHG emissions. Using lower GWP
refrigerants can significantly reduce the climate impact of these
emissions. Given the increasing availability of lower-GWP chemicals
suitable for this purpose and systems that can use them, as well as
increasing requirement for lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,\29\ EPA
based the light-duty GHG standards

for MYs 2017-2025 in part on an expected gradual transition to lower-
GWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the level of the standards, EPA
projected that the industry will make the full transition to lower-GWP
refrigerants over the period of time spanning between MY 2017 and MY
2021, and the level of the standard in each of these model years
reflects a projected 20 percent increase in substitution in each model
year and complete transition by MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2-3. In support of
the assumption of this multi-year transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule
for MYs 2017-2025 includes an extensive discussion of the refrigerant
substitute availability and technical feasibility of transitioning the
fleet. 77 FR 62720; 62807-810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time the Light Duty GHG rule was promulgated, EPA (and other
entities) voiced concerns with the potential supply of HFO-1234yf, but
today production plans for the refrigerant appear to be in place to
make it available in volumes that meet current and projected domestic
auto industry demand, consistent with the projections in the Light Duty
GHG rulemaking. Multiple production facilities are now producing HFO-
1234yf, and recently another global chemical producer announced plans
to produce HFO-1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some automotive manufacturers
are developing systems that can safely use other substitutes, including
R-744, and continued progress is likely given the EU's implementation
of the MAC Directive. If some global light-duty motor vehicle
manufacturers use R-744, additional volumes of HFO-1234yf that would
have been used by those manufacturers will then become available.
Therefore, there also appears to be sufficient supply to meet demand
domestically and abroad, including in the European Union, during this
time frame.
    In addition to considering when the supply of alternative
refrigerants would be sufficient to transition the entire light duty
vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also considered when vehicle
manufacturers could design systems for safe use of these alternatives
consistent with the regulatory use conditions.\30\ EPA considered the
practices used by the auto manufacturing industry in introducing new
technologies into their vehicles. For each vehicle model, manufacturers
establish a ``redesign'' (or product development) cycle over which they
plan any significant technological changes to that vehicle. Between the
major redesign model years, they may make only minor ``refresh''
changes. Redesign cycles vary by model and by manufacturer and average
about 5 model years in duration. (See 77 FR 62712 and 75 FR 25407,
25451 for a more detailed discussion of this practice.) At any point in
time, a manufacturer may have some vehicles at or approaching a major
redesign point and others that are earlier in their product cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As previously noted, HFO-1234yf, R-744 and HFC-152a are all
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions and many of the use
conditions address the design of systems to account for the
flammability or exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule establishing light-duty vehicle GHG standards for
MYs 2017-2025, EPA assumed that the transition to alternative
refrigerants would generally occur during manufacturer model redesigns
and used the overall typical industry redesign cycle of 5 model years
to estimate how the expected industry-wide transition to new
refrigerants might occur. For analytical purposes, and based on
information available at the time, we projected that the transition
would occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. EPA recognizes there have been
some early adopters. The transition began in a small number of MY 2013
vehicles and is increasing in MY 2014 but has been relatively limited
to date.\31\ While some may maintain that early adoption equates to a
faster overall transition, EPA notes that early adoption remains
limited and therefore we continue to view our projection of full
transition not occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will
accelerate with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile News,
December 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there may be some limited ability to switch a vehicle
model to an MVAC system using a low GWP refrigerant in between redesign
periods, most model types will require significant hardware changes
that may only be possible during a redesign. HFO-1234yf, for example,
has measurably lower efficiency than that of HFC-134a, usually
requiring hardware changes and/or changes to overall air conditioning
system design and layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case
of the transition in the 1990s from CFC-12 to HFC-134a, where the
systems had similar coefficients of performance and manufacturers were
able to switch many vehicles mid-cycle. Vehicles that require
relatively more cooling capacity will be more dependent on a redesign
cycle for a transition to HFO-1234yf since the specifications for
hardware would need to be revisited. Most manufacturers have ``locked-
in'' their planned product designs out to MY 2016, MY 2017, or even MY
2018. If any of these manufacturers have not planned to implement
alternative refrigerant systems in these late model year vehicles, the
next design cycle opportunity to make a change would be unlikely to
occur until MY 2021 (or even MY 2022). In addition, at least one
manufacturer has stated that it plans on using R-744 (CO2)
systems. R-744 systems require significantly more complex redesign and
hardware and would need to occur during product redesign, not product
refresh given its pressure is significantly different than HFC-134a.
These systems are currently in prototype phase, and there are
significant technical hurdles yet to overcome. Given EPA's
understanding, above, of the supply of the alternative refrigerants and
the redesign cycle for MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list HFC-134a
as unacceptable for new MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 because
this is the time by which all light-duty vehicle models can be
redesigned to safely use MVAC systems with alternative refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Weissler, Paul, ``A/C Industry Faces Challenges From
Daimler R-1234yf Issue, Explores Other Options,'' Automotive
Engineering International, April 2, 2013.
    \33\ One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware
changes were necessary or likely when shifting from a HFC-134a to a
HFO-1234yf system, including the following: compressor oil and/or
compressor changes, possible A/C piping modification due to the
change in valve shape, and, in the vehicle manufacturing plant,
additional refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA Memorandum:
``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning Alternative Refrigerant
Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made
similar statements to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a cross-check, EPA explored whether vehicles and MVAC systems
designed consistent with the use conditions for the three alternative
refrigerants might be available earlier than MY 2021, evaluating (but
not proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY 2017 is the date included in the
petition described above and in the EU MAC Directive. Since most motor
vehicle manufacturers will seek a global vehicle design platform,
selecting the same date as the date in the EU MAC Directive has some
weight. MY 2019 is an intermediate date between MYs 2017 and 2021.
    The agency believes it is necessary for MVAC system redesigns for
many vehicles to occur during a design cycle to safely use the
substitute refrigerants, as just explained. Manufacturers are currently
designing or have ``locked in'' designs for vehicles several model
years into the future. The information currently before the Agency thus
indicates that it would not be

technically feasible for manufacturers to safely transition all
vehicles from HFC-134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not proposing the MY
2019 date for the same reasons. However, we solicit comment on whether
all manufacturers would be able to safely transition all vehicles away
from HFC-134a MVAC systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019.
    We also considered whether a MY later than MY 2021 should be the
appropriate time for use of HFC-134a in MVAC systems in new vehicles to
be listed as unacceptable. In recent meetings with the major trade
associations for the auto industry (the Alliance and Global Automakers)
as well as with meetings with several individual manufacturers,
industry representatives indicated that some of them may have a
relatively small number of vehicle models that will not have had the
opportunity for an engineering redesign by MY 2021. They also indicated
that there may be technical barriers for certain models that would
require longer product design cycles if the systems were to use
substitute refrigerants. However, we do not have sufficient non-
confidential information to conclude that systems capable of using
alternative refrigerant safely will not be ``currently or potentially
available''--within the meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the Act--until
after MY 2021. EPA requests comments on changing the status of HFC-134a
in a model year later than MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including
specific information supporting claims that a transition by MY 2021
would not be technically feasible because specific model vehicles
cannot be redesigned to safely use alternative refrigerants by MY2021.
For the reasons explained earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives will
be available by MY 2021.
    Based on the information before the Agency, EPA is thus proposing
to modify the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable as of MY 2021 for
light duty vehicles, while seeking comment on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs
later than 2021.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have
applied to specified calendar years, However, because the MVAC
system used is so closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY
for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years cover almost two
calendar years, beginning after January 1 of the previous calendar
year and ending on January 1 of the following calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not proposing changes that would alter the ability to
service existing motor vehicles designed to use HFC-134a. Such a change
could strand the installed base of equipment or force retrofits to
other refrigerants. In order to safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the
vehicle design as well as the MVAC design may need to be modified in
order to ensure the refrigerant can be used safely. For that reason,
the three low-GWP refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable
in new MVACs--HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and R-744-are not listed as
acceptable to retrofit a system designed to use a different
refrigerant.
    Once MVAC systems are designed and installed with lower GWP
substitutes, they will likely need to be serviced. Some stakeholders
have expressed a concern that the price differential between HFO-1234yf
and HFC-134a provides an economic incentive to replace HFO-1234yf with
HFC-134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62807. Two sets of regulations
under title VI of the CAA make it clear that doing so is unlawful.
First, the SNAP regulations prohibit using a substitute refrigerant to
`top-off' a system that uses another refrigerant. Second, the original
refrigerant must be recovered in accordance with regulations issued
under section 609 of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute (40
CFR 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery regulations prohibit
adding a new refrigerant to the system without first recovering the
refrigerant already in the system. Therefore, it is not permissible to
add HFC-134a to an MVAC system that contains HFO-1234yf, as may well
occur if a consumer were to service his or her own car's A/C system
without refrigerant recovery equipment. In addition, the SNAP listings
for HFO-1234yf and HFC-134a require the use of unique fittings for each
alternative refrigerant. Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a
fitting to use a different refrigerant is a violation of these use
conditions.
    EPA seeks comments on changing the listing of SP34E, R-426A, R-
416A, R-406A, R-414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B
(also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also known as
Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also known as
GHG-HP) to unacceptable for use as refrigerants in air conditioning
systems for newly manufactured light-duty motor vehicles beginning with
MY 2017 and changing the listing of HFC-134a to unacceptable beginning
with MY 2021.
3. Would this action affect EPA's light duty vehicle rule?
    Today's proposal, should EPA adopt it, will have no direct effect
on the MY 2017-2025 light duty vehicle GHG standards. Those standards
are established by rule and EPA is not reopening that rule in this
proceeding. We do note, however, that today's proposal is relevant to