one of the compliance flexibilities in the light duty vehicle
standards. The light duty vehicle standards do not require any specific
means of compliance. Manufacturers thus have the flexibility to either
switch refrigerants or to comply with the standards by other means. The
light duty standards do provide that manufacturers can generate credits
from use of alternative refrigerants with lower GWPs than that of HFC-
134a through MY 2025, and the ability to generate and use those credits
towards compliance with the light duty standards will not change if
this action is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR 62804-809. (As noted
above, the level of the standard reflects the assumption of 100%
substitution by MY 2021). Even though a manufacturer may choose to
comply with the light duty standard by a strategy not involving
refrigerant substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed rule, if finalized,
would still require the manufacturer to use an MVAC designed for a
refrigerant other than HFC-134a.

C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines

1. Background
    Retail food refrigeration, an end-use within the SNAP program that
is also considered a subset of the broader term ``commercial
refrigeration,'' is characterized by storing and displaying, generally
for sale, food and beverages at different temperatures for different
products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). The designs and refrigerating
capacities of equipment vary widely. Vending machines are another
subset of commercial refrigeration considered as a separate end-use
within the SNAP program due to differences in where such equipment is
placed and the additional mechanical and electronic components required
to accept payment, provide the selected product, and prevent theft or
damage from vandalism.
    Retail food refrigeration is composed of three main categories of
equipment: Stand-alone equipment; condensing units; and supermarket
systems, the latter often in designs referred to as multiplex or
centralized refrigeration systems. Stand-alone equipment consists of
refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers (either open or with
doors) where all refrigeration components are integrated and, for the
smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is entirely brazed or welded.
These systems are charged with refrigerant at the factory and typically
require only an electricity supply to begin operation.

    Condensing units exhibit refrigerating capacities ranging typically
from 1 kW to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). They are composed
of one (and sometimes two) compressor(s), one condenser, and one
receiver assembled into a single unit, which is normally located
external to the sales area. This equipment is connected to one or more
nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food and beverages stored in display
cases and/or walk-in storage rooms. Condensing units are commonly
installed in convenience stores and specialty shops such as bakeries
and butcher shops.
    Typical supermarket systems are known as multiplex or centralized
systems. They operate with racks of compressors installed in a
machinery room; different compressors turn on to match the
refrigeration load necessary to maintain temperatures. Two main design
classifications are used: Direct and indirect systems. In the United
States, direct systems are the most widespread. At least 70 percent of
supermarkets in the United States use centralized direct expansion (DX)
systems to cool their display cases.\35\ The refrigerant circulates
from the machinery room to the sales area, where it evaporates in
display-case heat exchangers, and then returns in vapor phase to the
suction headers of the compressor racks. The supermarket walk-in cold
rooms are often integrated into the system and cooled similarly, but an
alternative option is to provide a dedicated condensing unit for a
given storage room. Another type of supermarket design, often referred
to as a distributed refrigeration system, uses an array of separate
compressor racks located near the display cases rather than having a
central compressor rack system. Each of these smaller racks handles a
portion of the supermarket load, with 5-10 such systems in a store.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indirect supermarket designs include secondary loop systems and
cascade refrigeration. Indirect systems use a chiller or other
refrigeration system to cool a secondary fluid that is then circulated
throughout the store to the cases. Compact chiller versions of an
indirect system rely on a lineup of 10-20 units, each using small
charge sizes. As the refrigeration load changes, more or fewer of the
chillers are active. Compact chillers are used in a secondary loop
system whereby the chillers cool a secondary fluid that is then
circulated throughout the store to the display cases. Each compact
chiller is an independent unit with its own refrigerant charge,
reducing the potential for refrigerant to be released from leaks or
catastrophic failures. Cascade systems use a compressor to raise the
low-temperature coolant from low-temperature conditions up to an
intermediate temperature while a separate refrigerant system uses a
different refrigerant to condense the coolant. Each system within the
cascade design contains its own refrigerant charge allowing the use of
different refrigerants in each system. This application has generally
used a low-GWP refrigerant, specifically carbon dioxide (R-744), in the
low-temperature system, with a variety of refrigerants in the medium-
temperature system.
    Refrigerant choices depend on the refrigerant charge, the
temperature required, and energy efficiency, among other things. In
addition to regulations pursuant to the SNAP program, other federal or
local regulations may also affect refrigerant choice. For instance,
regulations from the OSHA may restrict or place requirements on the use
of some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R-717). Building codes from
local and State agencies may also incorporate limits on the amount of
particular refrigerants used. There are and will continue to be a
number of factors that retailers must consider when selecting the
refrigerant and operating system design. While a number of approaches
exist, there is no uniformly accepted holistic analysis of the multiple
factors, which include the following: Energy efficiency; system
performance; potential impact on community safety; ambient
temperatures; potential risk to personal safety; cost; and minimization
of direct and indirect environmental impacts. EPA recognizes that these
and other factors mean there will be a range of options, and the
ultimate selection remains with the owner and operator of the system.
    Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in use today for new multiplex
systems include R-717 and R-744. These can be used alone or in
combination with other refrigerants in other parts of the equipment,
depending on the equipment and its design (e.g., a secondary-loop
contains one refrigerant while the primary loop contains a different
refrigerant). For stand-alone refrigeration equipment, propane (R-290)
is listed as acceptable subject to use conditions, and EPA has also
proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R-441A and isobutane (R-600a) be
listed as acceptable subject to use conditions (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR
38811). The Agency also has proposed elsewhere that these three
hydrocarbon refrigerants be listed as acceptable subject to use
conditions for vending machines (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other
substitutes, such as blends of saturated HFCs already listed as
acceptable under SNAP, are currently in use in the United States, while
HFOs and blends containing HFOs are being developed and tested but have
not yet been submitted to the SNAP program for review.
    The most commonly-used HFCs and HFC blends in retail food
refrigeration include HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-422D, and R-507A.
HFC-134a is a non-ozone depleting chemical with the chemical formula
C2H2F4. It is used in a variety of
air-conditioning and refrigeration end-uses, including motor vehicle
air conditioners, home appliances (such as refrigerator-freezers),
vending machines and building air-conditioning chillers. It is also
used in other sectors such as foam blowing and aerosol propellants.
HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430.
    R-404A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
143a, and HFC-134a with GWPs of 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively.
R-404A's GWP is about 3,920 based on the 44/52/4 mass percentages of
the three HFCs contained in the blend. R-404A is currently acceptable
for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications
including retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and
storage cases; vending machines; cold storage warehouses; commercial
ice machines; refrigerated transport; and industrial process
refrigeration.
    R-407A is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-32, HFC-
125 and HFC-134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, and 1,430 respectively. R-
407A's GWP is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 mass percentages of the
three HFCs contained in the blend. R-407A is acceptable for a variety
of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration applications including
retail food refrigeration equipment such as food display and storage
cases; cold storage warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated
transport; and industrial process refrigeration. R-407A is not
currently on the SNAP lists of acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants
for vending machines.
    R-422D is a non-ozone depleting blend of refrigerants HFC-125, HFC-
134a, and R-600a with GWPs of 3,500, 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008)
respectively. R-422D's GWP is about 2,700 based on the approximate
65.1/31.5/3.4 mass percentages of the two HFCs and one hydrocarbon
contained in the blend. R-422D is acceptable for a variety of medium-
and low-temperature

refrigeration applications including retail food refrigeration
equipment such as food display and storage cases; cold storage
warehouses; commercial ice machines; refrigerated transport; and
industrial process refrigeration. R-422D is most commonly used to
retrofit existing systems such as those operating on HCFC-22 and is
less likely to be used in manufacturing new equipment.
    R-507A (also designated as R-507) is a non-ozone depleting blend of
refrigerants HFC-125 and HFC-143a which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470,
respectively. R-507A's GWP is about 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass
percentages of the two HFCs contained in the blend. R-507A is
acceptable for a variety of medium- and low-temperature refrigeration
applications including in retail food refrigeration equipment such as
food display and storage cases; cold storage warehouses; refrigerated
transport; and industrial process refrigeration.
2. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit retail food refrigeration
(condensing units and supermarket systems)?
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for nine HFC blends for new
and retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to
unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These nine blends are R-404A, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, R-434A and R-507A. EPA is
not aware of any significant use in the United States of the blends R-
407B, R-421B, R-428A or R-434A in retail food refrigeration equipment.
In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listing of HFC-227ea in new
retail food refrigeration equipment from acceptable to
unacceptable.\36\ These ten refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730
to 3,985. They are nonflammable. They contain compounds that are exempt
from the definition of ``VOC,'' with the exception of small amounts of
R-290 and R-600a in five of the blends, and thus are not expected to
contribute significantly to smog. These refrigerants are relatively low
in toxicity, and practices common in the refrigeration industry ensure
that their workplace exposure limits are not exceeded. These practices
include adhering to those specified in the material safety data sheets
and others common in the commercial refrigeration industry. Applicable
workplace exposure limits for the compounds comprising these
refrigerants--HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-143a, HFC-227ea, R-290 and
R-600a--include Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) of 1000
ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) from the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA); a manufacturer's recommended
occupational exposure limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and a recommended exposure
limit (REL) of 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National Institutes for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EPA has not previously found HFC-227ea acceptable as a
retrofit refrigerant in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes there are several HFC and non-HFC substitutes that
provide lower overall risk than the refrigerants EPA is proposing to
list as unacceptable and that are currently used in commercial
refrigeration. For both new and retrofit equipment, acceptable
refrigerants that pose less risk to human health and the environment
include HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-
424A, R-426A, and R-438A. Additionally, in new retail food
refrigeration, three other substitute refrigerants are listed as
acceptable: R-717 vapor compression with secondary loop, R-410A, and R-
744.
a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in new retail food
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as
of January 1, 2016: HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C,
R-422D, R-428A, R-434A, and R-507A. These refrigerants have GWPs
ranging from approximately 2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants,
R-404A and R-507A, are currently in extensive use in the retail food
refrigeration market. EPA is also aware of some use of R-422A and R-
422D in retrofit situations only, not in new equipment. We are not
aware of the use of any of the other six refrigerants in retail food
refrigeration, although we seek comment on such use.
    Other acceptable alternatives that pose lower risk are also in use
in the various types of retail food refrigeration equipment. For
condensing unit systems, R-407C and R-407F are in use in the United
States, and R-744 and HCs are being used in limited demonstration
trials in Europe and elsewhere. The GWP for R-407C (a blend of HFC-32,
HFC-125, and HFC-134a) is about 1,770, and R-407F (another blend of
HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a) has a GWP of about 1,820. As a
comparison, R-404A has a GWP of 3,920, R-507A has a GWP of 3,990, and
the other refrigerants proposed unacceptable have GWPs ranging from
2,730 to 3,985.
    For multiplex rack systems, substitutes R-407A, R-407F, and R-744
are all currently in use in the United States and can be used more
safely than the substances that EPA is proposing to list as
unacceptable. These substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In
addition, testing is underway with HCs and HFC/HFO blends, though these
refrigerants have not been submitted to SNAP for review in this
application. Each of these four substitutes as well as other
substitutes in development with lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe
for the ozone layer. R-407A, R-407F, and R-744 all have toxicity lower
than or comparable to the refrigerants proposed unacceptable. None of
the three examples that would remain on the acceptable list is
flammable, and none is considered a VOC.
    b. Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    EPA is proposing to change the listing of the following
refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit retail food
refrigeration equipment (condensing units and supermarket systems) as
of January 1, 2016: R-404A, R-407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-
428A, R-434A, and R-507A. We are aware of four of these nine
refrigerants being used to retrofit retail food equipment: R-404A, R-
507A, R-422A, and R-422D. We are not aware of any use of the other five
refrigerants to retrofit retail food refrigeration equipment but seek
comment on any such use. This action would not apply to servicing
existing equipment designed for these nine refrigerants or to equipment
that had been retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1,
2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate and to be
serviced using those refrigerants.
    For condensing units and supermarket systems, where retrofits are
common, blends such as R-407A and R-407F have become the norm for
retrofits, rather than the four identified in the previous paragraph.
The blends R-407A and R-407F have zero ODP and GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825,
respectively. Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are currently listed as
acceptable for use as retrofits in retail food refrigeration include
HFC-134a, R-407C, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-426A and R-427A and they
have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the other
nine blends we are proposing as

unacceptable, which have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to 3,985.
    An unacceptability listing for these nine blends in retrofitted
equipment could primarily affect the many stores that operate using
HCFC-22, but also those using CFC-12, R-502, and several HCFC-
containing blends such as R-401A, R-402A and R-408A. This is because as
EPA reduces or eliminates the production and import of ODSs, stores
will have less material to meet service demands. While the ODS phaseout
does not require owners to retrofit their equipment, a decrease in the
availability of virgin material may in turn lead operators of those
stores to consider retrofits, although under our proposal certain
refrigerants would not be acceptable. For instance, some stores
currently using HCFC-22 may choose to retrofit as the production and
import of HCFC-22 is phased down and eventually phased out by 2020 per
40 CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed HCFC-22 allowance allocations for
the 2014-2019 time period (December 24, 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have
questioned whether finding certain refrigerants unacceptable for
retrofit might provide an incentive to stores to continue to operate
with the ODS they are currently using for longer than they might
otherwise plan, and we seek comment on this question. In response to
this question, we note that many retail chains have been able to
minimize the impact of the HCFC-22 phasedown by maintaining their own
stockpile of HCFC-22, for instance by recovering from stores that are
decommissioned or retrofitted and using such supplies in stores that
continue to operate with HCFC-22. We also note that some service is
being performed with reclaimed material, with over four million pounds
of HCFC-22 being reclaimed every year since at least 2000, and over
seven million pounds every year since 2006.\37\ While we don't know how
this reclaim market will change in the future, recent history shows
that the market is using reclaimed material in addition to limited
newly-produced supplies that are being reduced by the phaseout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can be found on
EPA's Web site at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the continued supply of HCFC-22, we believe that the
majority of retrofits are planned for reasons other than the supply of
the refrigerant currently in-use, for instance during planned
maintenance overhauls or when upgrading to more energy efficient
equipment. We also see that many retrofits are already directed towards
lower-GWP blends such as R-407A and R-407F instead of R-404A and R-
507A, as mentioned above. Further, we believe that other options, given
the multi-year history of their successful use, are sufficient to meet
the various features--such as capacity, efficiency, materials
compatibility, cost and supply--that affect the choice of a retrofit
refrigerant.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For example, see CCAC 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit stand-alone equipment?
a. New Stand-Alone Equipment
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other
refrigerants for new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment
from acceptable to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. These other
refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/
134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002
formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. These
refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to
approximately 3,990.
    Acceptable substitutes in new stand-alone equipment include R-744
and R-290. EPA recently proposed to find R-600a and R-441A acceptable
subject to use conditions in new stand-alone equipment (July 9, 2014;
79 FR 38811). These existing and potential substitutes have GWPs
ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, R-404A
with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of
approximately 3,990. None of the substitutes currently listed or
proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While R-290, R-600a, and
R-441A are VOCs, EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting
national ambient air quality standards. At the time we listed R-290 as
acceptable subject to use conditions, we analyzed the potential air
quality impacts of emissions of these VOCs and did not find this
potential risk to the environment to be significant (ICF, 2014e).\39\
We have likewise proposed to exempt R-600a and R-441A used in stand-
alone equipment from the venting prohibition (July 9, 2014; 79 FR
38811). These three substitutes are also flammable; however, the use
conditions specified (or proposed for R-600a and R-441A) would ensure
that they do not pose greater risk than any of the substitutes
currently listed as acceptable in new stand-alone equipment.\40\ None
of the refrigerants currently listed as acceptable or that we have
proposed to add to the list of acceptable substitutes presents
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts.
Apart from R-290 and R-744, those refrigerants listed acceptable for
new stand-alone equipment either contain an HCFC (and are addressed in
Section VI below) and/or do not appear to be in production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 in stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition found at 40 CFR
82.154 (78 FR 21871).
    \40\ The risks due to the flammability of these refrigerants in
this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable
subject to use conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and
docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0286) and information is found
in a SNAP proposed rule signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0748).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that R-290 is already in use globally, including in
the United States, and that R-600a is in use outside of the United
States as well as in test market trials in the United States. We
believe that these two refrigerants can satisfy the vast majority of
the current market for use in stand-alone equipment. We note that there
may be a need to modify the equipment design in order to meet the use
conditions for R-290 and the proposed use conditions for R-600a and R-
441A (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Because there are other substitutes
that pose lower risk, we are proposing to change the listing to
unacceptable for new stand-alone equipment of the following
refrigerants: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/
290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C,
R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
b. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for stand-alone
equipment as of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to
servicing existing equipment designed for those refrigerants or to
equipment retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016.
For instance, equipment retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those
refrigerants.

    While we do not believe retrofits are common in stand-alone retail
food refrigeration equipment, a number of refrigerants are listed as
acceptable for this purpose. For equipment still operating using ozone-
depleting refrigerants, we believe there are options available other
than R-404A and R-507A that present lower overall risk to human health
and the environment that are available. Our analysis indicates that
other options such as HFC-134a can be used to retrofit stand-alone
units.
4. What is EPA proposing for new and retrofit vending machines?
a. New Vending Machines
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for HFC-134a and other
refrigerants for new vending machines from acceptable to unacceptable
as of January 1, 2016. These other refrigerants are FOR12A, FOR12B,
IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), and SP34E. These refrigerants
have GWPs ranging from approximately 600 up to approximately 3,990.
    Acceptable existing substitutes with lower GWPs that pose less risk
to human health and the environment in this end-use include R-744,
which is currently being used in this end-use. In addition, EPA
recently proposed to find R-600a, R-290 and R-441A acceptable subject
to use conditions in new vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811).
We note that some redesign would be required to meet the use conditions
set for all three of these substitutes--R-600a, R-290 and R-441A-- in
the recent proposal (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811).
    These four substitutes (R-744 and the three proposed hydrocarbons)
have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430,
R-404A with a GWP of approximately 3,920, and R-507A with a GWP of
approximately 3,990. None of these substitutes currently listed or
proposed for listing as acceptable has an ODP. While the HCs (R-441A,
R-600a and R-290) are VOCs, EPA's analysis indicates that their use as
refrigerants in this end-use would not significantly affect meeting
national ambient air quality standards. (ICF 2014e).\41\ These three
substitutes are also flammable; however, the proposed use conditions
for these three substitutes would ensure they do not pose greater risk
than substitutes that are already listed as acceptable (July 9, 2014;
79 FR 38811). None of the substitutes currently listed or proposed to
be listed as acceptable present significant human health toxicity
concerns or other ecosystem impacts. Hence, we find that R-290, R-600a
and R-441A are potentially available and present a lower overall risk
to human health and the environment than HFC-134a and the other
refrigerants proposed to be listed as unacceptable in new vending
machines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ EPA has proposed to exempt R-290 (propane) R-600a
(isobutane) and R-441A in vending machines from the venting
prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new vending machines, EPA has found R-744 acceptable without
use conditions. While the vast majority of vending machines using non-
ODS refrigerant currently use HFC-134a, units are now being
manufactured to use R-744. At least one major global buyer of vending
machines is committed to transitioning all of their new U.S.-placed
equipment to R-744.\42\ Given the large market share that this company
holds, it is likely that R-744 components and units are already or will
shortly become a viable option for all vending machine OEMs and
purchasers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon dioxide as its
HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new equipment (Coca Cola, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the zero ODP and low GWP of R-744 and the other hydrocarbons
that EPA has proposed to find acceptable subject to use conditions in
vending machines, the use conditions that we have proposed to establish
for the hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact that the risks based on
other factors such as toxicity are not greater than for HFC-134a, we
propose to change the listing of HFC-134a and the alternatives listed
in the first paragraph of this section to unacceptable in new vending
machines.
b. Retrofit Vending Machines
    EPA is proposing to change the listing for R-404A and R-507A from
acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants for vending
machines operating on CFC-12, HCFC-22, and blends containing HCFCs, as
of January 1, 2016. This action would not apply to servicing existing
equipment designed for those refrigerants or to equipment that had been
retrofitted to use those refrigerants before January 1, 2016, including
those systems previously using ozone-depleting refrigerants such as
HCFC-22. For instance, systems retrofitted to R-404A or R-507A prior to
January 1, 2016, would be allowed to continue to operate using those
refrigerants.
    Under our proposal, the following refrigerants would remain
acceptable for retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a,
IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-407C,
R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A,
RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, and THR-02. These refrigerants have
GWPs from approximately 50 to approximately 3,100, while the two
refrigerants proposed unacceptable, R-404A and R-507A, have GWPs of
3,922 and 3,985, respectively. In this respect, these two refrigerants
present a higher risk to human health and the environment. Looking at
the other SNAP criteria, we find that those refrigerants remaining
acceptable present similar risk to human health and the environment:
they are nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and they do not exhibit
significant human health toxicity concerns or other ecosystem impacts.
Hence, we believe these options present lower overall risk to human
health and the environment than R-404A and R-507A.
5. When would the listings change?
    Through this action, we are proposing that all listing changes that
apply within commercial refrigeration would occur on the same date--
January 1, 2016. Looking at the intersection between the end-use and
the alternatives EPA believes that changing the listings as of January
1, 2016, allows sufficient opportunity for any planned new
installations or manufacturing equipment lines in these end-uses to be
redesigned to use a substitute to the refrigerants we are proposing to
find unacceptable. We also believe that this date would allow any plans
for future retrofits to these blends to be reconsidered, given the
multiple other substitutes that would remain acceptable. For many years
other refrigerants such as R-407A and R-407F that would remain on the
acceptable lists pursuant to our proposal have been gaining market
share in supermarket applications, in both new equipment and as
retrofit fluids.\43\ As part of this market expansion, manufacturers
have developed equipment to use them, and that equipment is available
to buyers now. In addition, many companies have implemented these other
refrigerants, in both new construction and as retrofits, and have built
up the skills, knowledge and experience to more fully utilize these
refrigerants in a timeframe that would accommodate January 1, 2016 as

the date of unacceptability. For stand-alone equipment and vending
machines, new equipment is being installed using refrigerants that are
acceptable or are proposed acceptable with use conditions, including R-
744, R-290 and R-600a.\44\ EPA requests comment on this proposed date.
EPA is also interested in information concerning the supply of
substitutes in sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition
within the proposed timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
    \44\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Applicability To Service of Existing Equipment
    As noted above, EPA is not proposing to alter the ability to
service existing retail food refrigeration equipment or vending
machines with the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016. We
recognize the value of the currently installed appliances and are not
seeking to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also recognizes that
servicing for existing equipment is often accomplished with recovered
and recycled refrigerants.
    EPA seeks comments on allowing for the continued servicing of the
existing retail food refrigeration equipment and vending machines with
the refrigerant they contain as of January 1, 2016.
7. Energy Efficiency Consideration
    Energy efficiency has not historically been a criterion by which a
refrigerant is analyzed under the SNAP program, and it is not used as
one of the criteria in this proposal. However, EPA recognizes that the
energy efficiency of particular models of equipment is a significant
factor when choosing commercial refrigeration equipment. We also
recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is
in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular
thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses.
    Throughout the phaseout of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has seen
the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment
increase, despite changing refrigerant options. In some cases, this was
because new chemicals were developed that possessed unique properties
that allowed high energy efficiency levels to be obtained. In addition,
technological improvement in equipment designs and controls has
increased energy efficiency. Although today's proposal would eliminate
some refrigerant choices, we do not believe it would have a detrimental
effect on this trend in increased energy efficiency. In fact, there are
multiple case studies available that highlight the energy efficiency
gains achieved by some of the low-GWP refrigerants, such as R-744, R-
290 and R-600a, that are available or potentially available for the
end-uses addressed in this proposal. We welcome additional information
and comment on improved energy efficiency associated with switching
refrigerants.
    For instance, in supermarket refrigeration, a theoretical analysis
(Emerson 2014) examined the energy use of R-407A and R-410A, both of
which would remain acceptable under this proposal, against that of R-
404A, which would be listed as unacceptable. Although this analysis
found that both blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop in efficiency in
the low-temperature part of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream),
they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% increase in the medium-temperature
part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy products, chilled prepared food).
Given that supermarkets have significantly larger use of medium-
temperature equipment, the net effect would be for the alternatives to
use less energy than R-404A. This manufacturer's analyses showed
similar increases in energy efficiency compared to R-404A in
supermarkets and stand-alone equipment for a variety of low-GWP
refrigerants that are not yet listed under SNAP but are in development.
    While that manufacturer's analysis showed slightly higher energy
consumption than R-134a in theoretical calculations for stand-alone
equipment, other results with actual equipment have shown otherwise.
For instance, in stand-alone equipment, one user reported that ``HC
freezers are significantly more energy-efficient and use a natural
hydrocarbon refrigerant with lower global warming potential than the
HFC refrigerants commonly used in US freezers'' (Ben and Jerry's,
2014). Likewise, for vending machines, one purchaser has indicated that
while introducing over one million units using R-744, they have
increased the energy efficiency of their cooling equipment over 40%
since 2000, many years after they adopted HFC-134a (Coca-Cola, 2014).
    Finally, we note that energy efficiency is influenced, but not
determined, by the refrigerant. As new products are designed for the
use of particular refrigerants, manufacturers have the opportunity to
change designs to take advantage of a given refrigerant's
characteristics. The redesign and development phase is also an
opportunity to improve other components that will affect the overall
efficiency of the equipment, such as the use of more efficient motors
and compressors, improved heat exchangers, better controls, improved
insulation (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for products with
doors), more efficient lighting, etc.
    The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under
separate rulemaking and separate authority, energy efficiency
requirements for several types of commercial refrigeration equipment,
including products that would be affected by this proposal. While EPA's
proposal would limit the choice of refrigerant a manufacturer could use
in new equipment, EPA notes that such equipment would still be subject
to the DOE requirements and would normally need to meet the standards
set.\45\ As discussed above, EPA does not believe this proposal would
prevent compliance with the DOE rules, and we note that many compliant
models are already commercially available that do not use the
refrigerants EPA has proposed as unacceptable. EPA requests comment on
the effects this proposal would have on the energy efficiency of the
commercial refrigeration end-uses addressed and in particular the
effect, if any, this proposal would have on meeting applicable DOE
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Refrigeration equipment in the applicable covered equipment
class would still be subject to DOE's standards, regardless of the
refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that
its design is subjected to undue hardship by a regulatory standard
prescribed by DOE (in contrast to one that is statutorily prescribed
by Congress), the manufacturer may petition DOE's Office of Hearing
and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the
standard pursuant to OHA's authority under section 504 of the DOE
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10
CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant regulatory relief from
a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it
determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the
standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of
burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. What other options is EPA considering?
    EPA is considering but is not proposing to change the listing for
several other substitutes in retail food refrigeration. We are seeking
comment on these substitutes.
a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems
    When analyzing supermarket retail food refrigeration systems, as an
alternative to changing the listing to unacceptable for HFC-227ea, R-
407B, R-421B, R-422A, R-422C, R-422D, R-428A, and R-434A, we are
considering setting a use restriction to limit the charge size of these
chemicals allowed to be used in condensing units and supermarket
systems. Supermarkets could use systems employing one of the

many advanced refrigeration designs currently deployed in the United
States, such as distributed refrigeration, secondary-loop, and cascade
designs. To set the charge size limit, EPA is considering the charge
size limit that is necessary, but not fully sufficient, to achieve a
Gold-Level Store Certification under EPA's GreenChill Store
Certification Program.\46\ That specification requires that the store
must achieve an average HFC refrigerant charge equal to or less than
1.25 pounds of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total evaporator heat load.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Additional information on GreenChill is available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/.
    \47\ In addition to reaching this HFC charge size limit, stores
must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and must meet a
store-wide annual refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in
order to be certified at the Gold level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new equipment, one reason we are considering a use restriction
requiring a small charge is to limit the amount of high-GWP refrigerant
that would be emitted in a catastrophic event. However, given the high
GWP of these refrigerants compared to other refrigerants that are
available in these end-uses, we do not believe that use with a small
charge size adequately addresses the greater risk they pose. Further,
we recognize that using a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R-407A or R-
407F, is also possible in small-charge systems, and several stores are
operating with such systems today.
    For retrofits, two primary factors lead us to consider a use
restriction for a small charge size in place of listing the substitutes
as unacceptable. First, there are many different supermarket systems in
operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants today, and there may be
some concern that not all could be retrofitted with the lower-GWP
blends, i.e., whether there truly are alternatives ``available'' for
the purpose. As to this concern, we reflect on three points. First,
based on the regulations phasing out CFCs in 1996, equipment using CFCs
today would be at least 18 years old, beyond the typical average
lifetime.\48\ Because it is typical to retire older equipment before
newer equipment, it is likely that many stores using those refrigerants
would be decommissioned, or the refrigeration systems would be replaced
rather than retrofitted. Second, we do not see an impediment in the
continued operation of stores currently using refrigerants proposed
unacceptable for new and/or retrofit equipment (see section 6 above).
We know that some stores have systems that continue to use CFC-12 and/
or R-502, the production and import of which was phased out in 1996,
and believe the same long equipment lifetimes can be achieved, if
desired, with equipment installed prior to January 1, 2016, using the
refrigerants we propose as unacceptable. Finally, where retrofits to
refrigerants that are not proposed as unacceptable have occurred, the
industry has been able to achieve acceptable capacity and efficiency
levels. All these factors point to the ability of industry to make
business decisions on which stores to decommission or retrofit and when
to do so while maintaining their operations without the need to rely on
the refrigerants we are proposing as unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the average lifetime
of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between
seven and 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, some have questioned whether removing options from the list
of acceptable retrofit substitutes might present a perverse incentive
for stores with older systems (more likely to leak) to continue use of
ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily HCFC-22 but also CFC-12, R-502,
and multiple blends containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or replace
those systems with a new refrigerant. While production and import of
HCFC-22 and all other HCFCs used in the acceptable retrofit blends are
capped, the stores using them would continue to leak ozone-depleting
refrigerants into the atmosphere. The additional refrigerant that they
would need to service that leaky equipment might not have been produced
in the first place if the demand was not there. Nonetheless, given the
tight controls on production and import of ozone-depleting
refrigerants, we believe the market will determine where those limited
supplies are directed and where a store may retrofit to a refrigerant
other than those proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
    EPA requests comments on both concerns addressed above,
particularly the availability of substitutes able to work with the
design of existing systems that might be retrofitted, and the possible
perverse incentives an unacceptable listing might bring to continue to
operate older, less efficient, and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also
requests comments on the specified charge size limit and how it would
be met in both new and retrofit retail food refrigeration (condensing
units and supermarket systems) if EPA were to propose a use restriction
rather than take final action by listing some or all of these
refrigerants as unacceptable for condensing units and supermarket
systems.
b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    For new stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment and vending
machines, we are considering maintaining the acceptability status of
HFC-134a and blends with a lower GWP--FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B,
SP34E, THR-02, and THR-03--subject to a use restriction. One reason to
maintain the acceptability of these refrigerants, in particular HFC-
134a, would be to allow niche applications to continue to use the
primary refrigerant employed in these end-uses while new low-GWP
substitutes are developed.
    For new vending machines, we are considering whether substitutes
other than HFC-134a are available for low-temperature refrigeration
applications, for instance, for ice-cream novelty or microwavable
frozen-food vending machines and, if not, whether to establish a use
restriction that HFC-134a could only be used in vending machines
designed for, and maintaining, an internal temperature of 32 [deg]F (0
[deg]C) or below. However, we believe that the availability of R-744,
which is listed as acceptable, and the availability of HCs, which we
have proposed to list as acceptable, do not support such an action. We
are requesting comment on the viability of these substitutes in low-
temperature applications. Further, we are asking for comment on the
supply of components designed for R-744, hydrocarbons, or other
potential substitutes for use in low-temperature vending machines and
how that supply might affect the ability of manufacturers to continue
to provide such equipment to meet these applications and customers'
requirements including energy efficiency goals.
    For new stand-alone equipment, we note that HCs pose additional
challenges related to their flammability. Some stand-alone retail food
refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs have required design changes,
and our use conditions require meeting specific charge size limits,
raising questions of the viability of HCs in all larger applications
within this end-use. EPA is considering adding a use restriction
limiting the use of HFC-134a and the blends mentioned to only larger-
sized units, while finding it unacceptable in smaller-sized units. To
determine the dividing line between ``small'' and ``large'' units, we
are considering options such as the number of doors within a single
unit, the refrigeration capacity of the unit, and the interior volume.

    Although we are considering this option, we are not proposing it
because we feel other options exist to design units using other less
harmful alternatives, even in large stand-alone units. The SNAP
acceptability listing for R-744 in stand-alone equipment does not
include a restriction on charge size or any other use condition. We
also recognize the ability to apply separate refrigeration circuits
within a given cabinet; for instance one circuit with up to 150 grams
of R-290 to cool a portion of the unit and a second circuit with up to
150 grams of R-290 to cool the rest of the unit. Such dual-circuit
designs might be particularly effective if different parts of the unit
are used for different products that require different temperature
conditions or have different refrigeration loads.
    EPA seeks comments on this option and particularly on how one would
determine what size of a unit could not use substitutes that would
remain on the acceptable list under this proposal or that we have
recently proposed be added to the acceptable list; where the dividing
line would be drawn; and how such a use restriction could avoid
unintended consequences such as the over-sizing of units to allow the
use of HFC-134a.
    EPA believes that R-744, an acceptable option for both new stand-
alone retail food refrigeration equipment and new vending machines, and
R-290, an acceptable substitute for new stand-alone retail food
refrigeration equipment and proposed as acceptable for new vending
machines, could satisfy the vast majority of new equipment in these
end-uses. However, we seek additional information and studies that
would help us understand whether certain designs (e.g., 3-door and
other large retail food refrigeration stand-alone equipment) could meet
the charge size limit in the case of R-290. We also seek information
regarding whether certain applications (e.g., low-temperature vending
machines) could be effective while maintaining current energy
efficiency levels in the case of R-744.
c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and Vending Machines
    EPA has proposed to find R-404A and R-507A unacceptable for
retrofits in both stand-alone equipment and vending machines. EPA is
considering also changing the acceptability status of several other
refrigerants to unacceptable. Under this option, we would change the
status of the following refrigerants from acceptable to unacceptable in
retrofit retail food refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): KDD6, R-
125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C,
R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24
(2002 formulation), and RS-44 (2003 formulation). Likewise, this option
would change the status of the following refrigerants from acceptable
to unacceptable in retrofit vending machines: KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a
(55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-417A, R-417C, R-421A, R-422B, R-
422C, R-422D, R-426A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-24 (2002
formulation). The refrigerants in these two lists have GWPs that range
from 1,505 to 3,985.
    These refrigerants have higher GWPs than HFC-134a, which would
remain acceptable for retrofits, and in this respect pose a higher risk
to human health and the environment. Similar to HFC-134a, these other
refrigerants do not pose increased risk due to toxicity, flammability,
ODP and ecological effects. EPA believes that HFC-134a would be the
most likely refrigerant to be used to retrofit stand-alone equipment
and vending machines still operating on ozone-depleting refrigerant.
EPA questions whether the other refrigerants listed above would serve
any retrofit need, and whether finding them unacceptable would reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA believes some
existing vending machines and stand-alone equipment still use class I
ozone-depleting refrigerants such as CFC-12 and R-502 and that even
more equipment continues to use class II ozone-depleting refrigerants,
primarily HCFC-22. Other than HFC-134a, we do not believe there are
substitutes that would likely be used for most of this equipment for
purposes of retrofitting.
    We seek comment on the option of finding other substitutes, in
addition to R-404A and R-507A, unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants in
vending machines and stand-alone retail food refrigeration equipment.
In particular, we are interested in an assessment of the existing stock
of equipment operating with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the
likelihood that they will require a retrofit before being replaced with
a new unit, and the substitute(s) that could be and are likely to be
used.
d. Status of R-404A and R-507A in Other End-Uses
    Considering the high GWP of R-404A, R-507A, and some of the other
blends proposed as unacceptable, EPA is considering finding them
unacceptable in several other end-uses, besides retail food
refrigeration and vending machines, such as cold storage rooms and
warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport, and industrial
process refrigeration. We believe that the substitutes that are being
used in retail food refrigeration, such as R-407A and R-407F, would be
theoretically viable in these other end-uses too, given that the
operational characteristics of such equipment, such as temperature to
be maintained, are similar. Those two substitutes, and others, have
been found acceptable in the four end-uses mentioned. In addition, low-
GWP substitutes have been found acceptable under SNAP for some of these
end-uses, and research is underway in the others. For example, for the
industrial process refrigeration end-use, R-744, R-717, and several HCs
have been found acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, R-744 is
acceptable for new equipment, and R-717 is in widespread use. R-744 for
refrigerated transport and HCs for ice machines have been tested and,
although not yet listed under SNAP, are being used outside the United
States. In these two end-uses, the list of acceptable refrigerants is
similar to that for supermarket applications, spanning a wide range of
GWPs. Several HFC blends with GWPs considerably lower than those of R-
404A and R-507A are being used in retail food refrigeration, especially
in supermarkets and, as stated above, are acceptable in the four end-
uses mentioned; however, we have limited knowledge of their use in
these other end-uses. For that reason, we have not proposed finding R-
404A and R-507A unacceptable in these other end-uses.
    EPA requests comment on the use and viability of both low-GWP
refrigerants (e.g., R-744, R-717, and HCs) and other HFC-blends (e.g.,
R-407A and R-407F) and the possibility of listing R-404A, R-507A, and
other high-GWP blends unacceptable in any or all of these four end-
uses--cold storage warehouses, ice machines, refrigerated transport,
and industrial process refrigeration. EPA also solicits comments on the
feasibility of the proposed deadlines and whether earlier or later
dates would be more appropriate.

D. Foam Blowing Agents

    EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable beginning January 1, 2017, except where allowed under a
narrowed use limit, for HFC-134a and blends thereof in all foam blowing
end-uses, and for HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa and blends thereof for all foam
blowing end-uses except spray foam applications. Specific end-uses and
applications include: (1) Rigid

polyurethane appliance foam; (2) flexible polyurethane; (3) rigid
polyurethane: commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels; (4) rigid
polyurethane (slabstock and other); (5) rigid polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; (6) integral skin polyurethane;
(7) polystyrene (extruded sheet); (8) polystyrene: extruded boardstock
and billet; (9) polyolefin; and (10) phenolic insulation board and
bunstock. In addition, EPA is proposing to change the listings from
acceptable to unacceptable for the following foam blowing agents in the
following end-uses as of January 1, 2017: (1) Formacel B in polystyrene
(extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid polyurethane
appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration,
and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock, integral skin
polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin; (3) Formacel
Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane
(commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane
slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet), integral skin
polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4) HFC-143a in
phenolic insulation board and bunstock.
1. Background
    Foams are plastics (such as polyurethane or polystyrene) that are
manufactured using blowing agents to create bubbles or cells in the
material's structure. The foam plastics manufacturing industries, the
markets they serve and the blowing agents used are extremely varied.
The range of uses includes building materials, appliance insulation,
cushioning, furniture, packaging materials, containers, flotation
devices, filler, sound proofing and shoe soles. Some foams are rigid
with cells that still contain the foam blowing agent, which can
contribute to the foam's ability to insulate. Other foams are open-
celled, with the foam blowing agent escaping at the time the foam is
blown, as for flexible foams.
    Historically, a variety of foam blowing agents have been used for
these applications. CFCs and HCFCs were typically used given their
favorable chemical properties. CFCs and HCFCs are controlled substances
under the Montreal Protocol and subject to regulation under the CAA
including a phaseout of production and import under section 604 for
CFCs and section 605(b)-(c) for HCFCs and use restrictions on HCFCs
under section 605(a). The regulations implementing section 610 of the
CAA include a ban on sale or distribution of foam products blown with
class I and class II ODS: however, for foam products containing a class
II ODS, the ban is subject to an exception for foam insulation products
as defined at 40 CFR 82.62.
    The SNAP program has found acceptable a variety of non-ODS blowing
agents, including HFCs (e.g., HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc),
hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, water, and methyl formate. In addition,
low-GWP fluorinated compounds in use include HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice 1233zd(E)).
    Blowing agents are approved on an end-use basis. The SNAP program
considers the following end-uses:
    a. Rigid polyurethane (appliance foam) includes insulation foam in
domestic refrigerators and freezers.
    b. Rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial refrigeration, and
sandwich panels) includes buoyancy foams, insulation for roofing, wall,
pipes, metal doors, vending machines, coolers, and refrigerated
transport vehicles.
    c. Rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other) includes insulation for
panels and pipes.
    d. Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock
includes insulation for roofing and walls.
    e. Flexible polyurethane includes foam in furniture, bedding, chair
cushions, and shoe soles.
    f. Integral skin polyurethane includes car steering wheels,
dashboards, and shoe soles.
    g. Polystyrene (extruded sheet) includes foam for packaging and
buoyancy or flotation.
    h. Polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet) includes insulation
for roofing, walls, floors, and pipes.
    i. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and tubes.
    j. Phenolic insulation board and bunstock includes insulation for
roofing and walls.
2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing agents?
    EPA is proposing to change the listings from acceptable to
unacceptable for HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and any blends
containing these blowing agents for all foam end-uses and applications
except for spray foam as of January 1, 2017. In addition, we propose to
change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for the following
foam blowing agents in the following end-uses: (1) Formacel B in
polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet); (2) Formacel TI in rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, rigid polyurethane (spray, commercial
refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid polyurethane slabstock,
integral skin polyurethane, polystyrene extruded sheet and polyolefin;
(3) Formacel Z-6 in rigid polyurethane appliance foam, rigid
polyurethane (commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels), rigid
polyurethane slabstock, polystyrene (extruded boardstock and billet),
integral skin polyurethane, and polystyrene extruded sheet; and (4)
HFC-143a in phenolic insulation board and bunstock, all as of January
1, 2017--that is, it would be prohibited to blow foam using these
blowing agents for these uses beginning January 1, 2017. In addition,
we propose that it would be prohibited to import closed cell foam
products or products containing closed cell foam that contain any of
the blowing agents listed as unacceptable. EPA is also seeking comment
on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in
particular what would be the legal basis for doing so. Finally, we are
providing a limited exception to the date when the unacceptability
determinations apply for certain military and space applications where
there is documentation that additional time is required to complete
qualification testing.
a. What other foam blowing agents are being used?
    Various foam blowing agents have been historically used. The
opportunity to use hydrocarbons (HCs), CO2, and water in the
1990s for a range of foam blowing applications in the United States has
allowed many foam blowing end-uses and applications to transition from
ODS, thus reducing the end-uses that rely on HCFCs or HFCs. HCs have
been a low-GWP and cost-effective alternative available for large parts
of the foam sector, particularly in flexible polyurethane foam,
polystyrene sheet foam, polyurethane slabstock foam, polyurethane and
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, phenolic, and polyolefin foams.
HCs also are used in most of the other end-uses, but less extensively
than in these six end-uses. However, flammability of foam blowing
agents, including HCs, can be a concern, particularly for spray foam
applications.
    Over the past ten years both fluorinated and non-fluorinated
alternatives have expanded both the list of options for specific foam
uses and the foam uses in which these alternatives are now used has
also grown. A number of new foam blowing agents with low GWPs have been
introduced during the

past several years. Many end users have indicated interest in these
newer alternatives, often to improve energy efficiency of the foam
products manufactured with the foam blowing agent. Production volumes
for some of these newer substitutes are expanding rapidly to keep pace
with growing demand. For example, HFO-1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene have recently been listed as acceptable. HFO-
1336mzz(Z) is currently under review by EPA as a substitute foam
blowing agent. These newer substitutes, which do not raise the
flammability concerns of HCs, may prove appropriate for end-uses where
flammable agents raise safety concerns. The process and timing for
retooling facilities that use the blowing agents or that incorporate
the foam product into another product will vary depending on the
substitute selected. In some cases, manufacturing facilities such as
household refrigerator manufacturers have already begun the testing of
and transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes for foam blowing.
b. What are the health and environmental impacts of the substitute foam
blowing agents?
i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents
    The HFCs that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs
ranging from 794 for HFC-365mfc to 4470 for HFC-143a, which is
significantly higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes. The
HFC blends that we are proposing to find unacceptable have GWPs that
vary depending on the specific composition; the range of GWPs for
blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel B, 1330 to close to 1500 for
Formacel TI, 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z-6, 740 to 1030 for blends of
HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-245fa, and 900 to 1100 for commercial
blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc. All of the HFCs and HFC blends that we are proposing to find
unacceptable consist of compounds that are non-ozone-depleting and are
VOC-exempt. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these
alternatives because they may be used for blowing foam consistent with
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. For example, HFC-
134a, HFC-143a, and HFC-245fa can be used consistent with their
respective AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in
the foam end-uses where they are acceptable. Of the foam blowing agents
that we propose to be unacceptable, some are nonflammable (HFC-134a,
HFC-245fa, Formacel TI, blends of HFC-365mfc with at least 4% HFC-
245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with 7 to 13% HFC-227ea and
the remainder HFC-365mfc), while others are flammable (HFC-365mfc and
HFC-143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 may be flammable
depending on the exact composition, with the less flammable or
nonflammable formulations having higher GWPs, in some cases as high as
1300 to 1500.
    In addition to the GWP of foam blowing agents, another potential
climate impact from foam blowing agents is the insulation value of the
blown foam. This may matter for rigid insulation foams, where the foam
blowing agent may add more or less insulation value to rigid
polyurethane appliance foam; rigid polyurethane spray, commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane slabstock and
other foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet; rigid
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; and phenolic
insulation board and bunstock. A foam with better overall insulation
value can reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from power plants if
the foam insulation results in greater energy efficiency and less need
for heating or cooling. Some studies have indicated that hydrocarbons
and CO2 may provide less insulation value to an insulation
foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent information on some of the
newer fluorinated foam blowing agents with low GWPs, such as HFO-
1234ze(E) and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates these
foam blowing agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than
their HCFC and HFC predecessors and therefore may be of interest to
companies considering transition to more energy-efficient options. In
addition, even a foam blowing agent that provides less insulation value
may still not impact the foam's overall energy efficiency where thicker
foam is used. Because of the variety of foam blowing agents available
in each end-use, we believe that there are sufficient options that will
not have an adverse impact on indirect greenhouse emissions.
ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam
    For rigid polyurethane appliance foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6
\49\), CO2, vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM,
Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives (in-kind
and not-in-kind) with GWPs that range from zero to seven. Toxicity is
not a significant concern for these alternatives because they may be
used for blowing appliance foam consistent with required or recommended
workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing
agents, these alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the
definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene contains chlorine and has measurable
ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51  is roughly one
order of magnitude higher than the ODP of HFC-134a which is considered
to have zero ODP.\52\ Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's impact
on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically
insignificant.\53\ Of the various options listed in this paragraph,
ecomate\TM,\ Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The hazards of the
flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the
process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use,
HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ These are hydrocarbons with three to six carbons, including
propane, butane, isobutane, pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and
hexane.
    \50\ Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. ``Preliminary Report:
Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.''
Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana,
IL. September 26, 2011.
    \51\ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and
Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-
dimensional model.'' Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
    \52\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
    \53\ Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Flexible Polyurethane
    For flexible polyurethane used for foam furniture, bedding, chair
cushions, shoe soles and other applications, acceptable substitutes
include acetone, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), Exxsol blowing agents,
CO2, ecomateTM (i.e., methyl formate), HFC-152a,
and water with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of the substitutes listed
for flexible polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these substitutes because they may be used for
blowing flexible polyurethane foam consistent with required or
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt

from the definition of VOC. Of the various options listed in this
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and
hydrocarbons are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam
    For rigid polyurethane spray foam, which includes insulation for
roofing, wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable substitutes include HFC-
245fa, commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea, containing 7% to
13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, blends of HFC-365mfc and at
least 5% HFC-245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents,
ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-
ene, with GWPs ranging from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a significant
concern for these alternatives because they may be used for spray foam
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain
compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the
substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene
has an ODP, and as discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance
foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be
statistically insignificant.
    Flammability is of particular concern in spray foam applications,
in part because they are applied onsite in pressurized equipment with
spray guns, sometimes in proximity to hot, flammable substances such as
tar. The alternative manufacturers have developed training to assist
end-users in addressing the flammability hazards of the flammable
compounds in this end-use (Exxsol blowing agents and ecomate\TM\);
however, these alternatives have limited, if any, use in spray foams in
the United States.54 55 Flammability risks are more
difficult to mitigate than in most other foam applications because,
unlike in a factory setting, it is unlikely that ventilation can be
provided that removes flammable vapors and maintains them below the
lower flammability limit, and it is not practical to make all
electrical fixtures explosion proof when applying spray foam in place
in a residential building. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC-134a and
blends thereof and Formacel TI unacceptable in this application. We are
proposing that HFC-245fa; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-
227ea, containing 7% to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and
blends of HFC-365mfc and at least 5% HFC-245fa remain acceptable in
spray foam because these three nonflammable foam blowing agents reduce
overall risk compared to the available flammable alternatives. The
three HFC blends that remain acceptable reduce overall risks to human
health and the environment compared to HFC-134a and Formacel TI in this
application because they have lower GWPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report,
Additional Information on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013.
    \55\ UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams
Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is
accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich
Panels
    For rigid polyurethane used in commercial refrigeration and
sandwich panels, which includes insulation for roofing, wall, metal
doors, vending machines, coolers, buoyancy, and refrigerated transport
vehicles, acceptable alternatives include saturated light HCs (C3-C6),
ecomateTM, CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents,
methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing foam for commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels,
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing agents, these
substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone
abundance is expected to be statistically insignificant. Of the various
substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol
blowing agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In these
applications, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel Z-6 and
Formacel B have significantly higher GWPs than the other available
substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing
overall risks to human health and the environment.
vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other Foam
    For rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foam, saturated light
HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents,
methyl formate, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs that range from zero to
seven. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these alternatives
because they may be used for blowing slabstock foam consistent with
required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception
of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these alternatives contain compounds
that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed
above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP, and as
discussed above for rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on
global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be statistically
insignificant. Of the various options listed in this paragraph,
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, HFC-134a, Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6
have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
vii. Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock
    For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock,
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol
blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs
that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing laminated
boardstock consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure
limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these

alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene's
impact on global atmospheric ozone abundance is expected be
statistically insignificant. Of the various options listed in this
paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate
are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability
hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately
addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In
this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have significantly
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and
the environment.
viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet
    For polystyrene extruded sheet, acceptable substitutes include
saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol
blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl formate), and HFC-152a. These
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing extruded polystyrene foam consistent with required or
recommended workplace exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and
Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes
listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a,
and HCs are flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The
flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in this end-use can be
adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and
fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel
TI and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than the other
available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby
increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet
    For polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet, acceptable
substitutes include saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-C6),
CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\ (methyl
formate), HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze(E). These substitutes have GWPs
ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for these
alternatives because they may be used for blowing extruded polystyrene
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits.
With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes
contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the
substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of
the various substitutes listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol
blowing agents, HFC-152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are
nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in
this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of meeting OSHA
regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-
365mfc, Formacel B and Formacel Z-6 have significantly higher GWPs than
the other available substitutes mentioned above in this paragraph,
thereby increasing overall risks to human health and the environment.
x. Integral Skin Polyurethane
    In integral skin polyurethane, which includes foam in car steering
wheels, dashboards, and shoe soles, substitutes include acetone,
saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2, water, Exxsol blowing
agents, methyl formate, ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-152a, and
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. These substitutes have GWPs
ranging from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral skin
polyurethane foam consistent with required or recommended workplace
exposure limits. With the exception of HCs and Exxsol blowing agents,
these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the definition
of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as discussed above for rigid
polyurethane appliance foam, its impact on global atmospheric ozone
abundance is expected be statistically insignificant. Of the various
substitutes listed in this paragraph, acetone, methyl formate,
ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, and hydrocarbons are
flammable, and the others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of
the flammable compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in
the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-
use, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6
have significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
xi. Polyolefin Foam
    For polyolefin foam, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), CO2,
water, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a,
blends of HFC-152a and saturated light HCs, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable alternatives with GWPs
that range from zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant concern for
these alternatives because they may be used for blowing polyolefin foam
consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits. With
the exception of HCs, HC blends, and Exxsol blowing agents, these
alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in this paragraph, all have an ODP
of zero. Of the various options listed in this paragraph, ecomate\TM\,
Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl formate are flammable, and the
others are nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable
compounds in this end-use can be adequately addressed in the process of
meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC-134a,
Formacel TI, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Formacel Z-6 have significantly
higher GWPs than the other available substitutes mentioned above in
this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to human health and
the environment.
xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock
    In phenolic insulation board and bunstock, which includes
insulation for roofing and walls, acceptable substitutes include
saturated light HCs (C3-C6),), CO2, 2-chloropropane, water,
Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate\TM\, HFO-1234ze(E), and HFC-152a. These
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 1 to 124. Toxicity is not a
significant concern for these alternatives because they may be used for
blowing phenolic foam consistent with required or recommended workplace
exposure limits. With the exception of 2-chloropropane, hydrocarbons,
and Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are
exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the substitutes listed above in
this paragraph, all have an ODP of zero. Of the various substitutes
listed in this paragraph, 2-chloropropane, ecomate\TM\, Exxsol blowing
agents, HFC-152a, and HCs are flammable, and the others are
nonflammable. The flammability hazards of the flammable compounds in
this end-use can be adequately

addressed in the process of meeting OSHA regulations and fire codes. In
this end-use, HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and HFC-365mfc have
significantly higher GWPs than the other available substitutes
mentioned above in this paragraph, thereby increasing overall risks to
human health and the environment.
    For the foam end-uses listed above, both fluorinated and non-
fluorinated substitutes are being used today in the U.S.; EPA
recognizes that the formulator and systems house will consider other
criteria including toxicity, flammability, and local air quality.
However, given the range of substitutes available, we believe that
there are other alternatives available for formulators or systems
houses that pose less risk for human health and the environment than
the HFCs and HFC blends proposed to be listed as unacceptable.
c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams and products containing
foams?
    EPA is proposing to regulate foam blowing agents contained in the
cells of closed cell foams and proposes to consider these foams and
products containing them to be subject to the proposed unacceptability
determinations, as well as the use of the foam blowing agent in
manufacturing those products. Section 612(c) of the Clean Air Act
refers to ``replacing'' ODS with substitutes. In the case of the foam
blowing agent sector, we have previously interpreted unacceptability
determinations as referring solely to replacing the foam blowing agent
and have not interpreted the SNAP lists to apply to products made with
foam. Thus, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used in or
imported into the United States. However, products made with
unacceptable foams blown overseas may be imported. For example,
refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with the unacceptable
blowing agent HCFC-141b may still be imported into the United States,
even though the SNAP program has listed HCFC-141b as an unacceptable
foam blowing agent (September 30, 2004 at 69 FR 58269). Under this
interpretation of our SNAP regulations if this proposal becomes final
the foam blowing agents we are proposing to find unacceptable would be
prohibited from being used or imported into the United States, but foam
products or products containing foam, such as appliances or furniture
made with these unacceptable foam blowing agents, could be imported.
    In this rule, EPA is proposing to adopt a different interpretation
for closed cell foams that would result in prohibiting both import and
manufacture of products made with the blowing agents proposed to be
unacceptable. This approach would have an effect similar to the earlier
nonessential product ban for products containing unacceptable foam
blowing agents, prohibiting import and distribution of such products.
For closed cell foams, the blowing agents are retained in cells after
the foam is blown and provide insulation value. Foam blowing end-uses
that contain closed-cell foams include rigid polyurethane appliance
foam; rigid polyurethane: Spray, commercial refrigeration, and sandwich
panels; rigid polyurethane (slabstock and other); rigid polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene (extruded
sheet); polystyrene: extruded boardstock and billet; polyolefin; and
phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses
containing open cell foams include flexible polyurethane and integral
skin polyurethane. In comparison, in open cell foams, the blowing agent
is not retained and would have escaped prior to import. Thus, an open
cell product blown with an unacceptable foam blowing agent (or products
containing such an open cell foam) would not contain any of that agent
when imported in the United States whereas a closed cell product would
still retain some of the foam blowing agent. EPA is proposing and is
seeking comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam
blowing agent to apply to products with closed cell foam since the
product still contains at least some of the foam blowing agent and thus
is replacing other foam blowing agents. EPA is also seeking comment on
whether the Agency should consider use of the foam blowing agent to
apply to open cell foam and products containing open cell foam, and in
particular on what would be the legal basis for doing so.
d. When would the listings change?
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to change the listings for
foam blowing agents as of January 1, 2017. Based on information
concerning the timeframes from past transitions, EPA believes this date
allows sufficient opportunity to redesign for a different foam blowing
agent. However, EPA is seeking comment on changing the listings as of
January 1, 2016. The foam industry was able to convert from HCFC-142b
and HCFC-22 to other acceptable substitutes between EPA's proposed
unacceptability determination in November 2005 and its final
determination in March 2007, which specified that existing users of the
unacceptable HCFCs must transition by March 1, 2008, for most uses. EPA
also provided an additional 18 months for this transition for marine
flotation foam, to September 1, 2009, and allowed until January 1,
2010, for a transition away from HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in extruded
polystyrene foam boardstock (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). EPA is
requesting comment on using January 1, 2017 as the date on which foam
must not be blown using HFC-134a, HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, HFC-143a and
blends thereof, or Formacel B, Formacel TI, and Formacel Z-6. We are
also seeking comment on whether a transition could be completed by
January 1, 2016. In particular, we request comment on whether these
dates would be sufficient time for the transition where the foam
product is incorporated into a larger product (e.g., commercial
refrigeration foam used in transport refrigeration), and whether there
are any specific foam end-uses or applications that may require
additional time and, if so, how long and why. Based on this
information, EPA could consider grandfathering options for foam blowing
agents in specific end-uses or could provide a different date for use
to be unacceptable.
e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or Space- and Aeronautics-Related
Applications
    EPA is proposing an exception to the proposed unacceptability
determination for HFC and HFC blend foam blowing agents for military or
space- and aeronautics-related applications. EPA is also proposing that
the narrowed use limit would expire on January 1, 2022. Under a
narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space- and
aeronautics application would need to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible and document the results of their
analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). For the military, there are several
unique performance requirements related to weapon systems that require
extensive testing prior to qualifying alternatives for HFC-containing
foams. While the vast majority of applications for foams are
anticipated to be able to transition to acceptable alternatives by the
proposed January 1, 2017 date, in a very small number of cases, the
timeframes associated with testing and qualifications for weapon
systems could take longer. In addition, some of the lower-GWP
alternatives may not be available at this time in certain specialty
applications with unique military requirements such as undersea;
aerospace; and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare systems.
In the case of space- and aeronautics-related

applications, HFCs are used in numerous applications, including certain
mission-critical applications such as foam blowing for which
appropriate substitutes have not yet been identified. Past experience
indicates that transitions away from CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in
similar applications took several years due to the challenging
operational environment and the lengthy requalification process
associated with human-rated space flight systems.
    Under the acceptable for narrowed use limits category, users of a
restricted agent within the narrowed use limits category must make a
reasonable effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives
are not technically feasible. Users are expected to undertake a
thorough technical investigation of alternatives to the otherwise
restricted substitute. Although users are not required to report the
results of their investigations to EPA, users must document these
results, and retain them in their files for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance.
    Under a narrowed use limit, the end user for a military or space-
and aeronautics- related application would need to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible and document the results of
their analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation should include
descriptions of:
     Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
     Substitutes examined and rejected;
     Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
     Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
    EPA is seeking comment on this proposed narrowed use limitation for
military or space- and aeronautics-related applications In addition,
EPA is also seeking comment on the timeframe for this narrowed use
limitation, recognizing that if all alternatives are not qualified in
advance of 2022, the Agency may need to revisit and adjust the end
date.
f. Summary
    EPA seeks comments on changing the listings for the proposed foam
end-uses. In particular, EPA is interested in whether there are
specific uses other than spray foam that require the use of HFC-134a,
HFC-365mfc, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof, or the blends Formacel B,
Formacel TI, or Formacel Z-6 for reasons of fire safety or technical
feasibility. We request comment on whether closed cell foam products
and products containing closed cell foams should be subject to the
unacceptability determinations, which under our current interpretation
would otherwise only apply to the use of the foam blowing agent. We
also seek comment on whether the Agency should consider use of the foam
blowing agent to apply to open cell foam and products containing open
cell foam, and in particular what would be the legal basis for doing
so. EPA also requests comment on whether the proposed date provides an
appropriate length of time for transition and whether there should be
different dates for certain foam end-uses due to technical challenges
that may exist for some foam end-uses but not all. EPA is also
interested in information concerning the supply of substitutes in
sufficient quantities to meet a domestic transition in the timeframe
proposed in this action. EPA also takes comment on the proposed
exception for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications
as described above.

VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for three HCFCs in certain
end-uses because the three HCFCs are subject to the use restrictions in
CAA section 605(a) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82
subpart A. Additionally, the nonessential products ban under CAA
section 610 also restricts sale and distribution of certain products
containing or manufactured with these three HCFCs. We believe it is
important that the SNAP listings not indicate that these HCFCs may be
used when another program under title VI of the CAA would prevent such
use. Thus, we are proposing to align the requirements. The HCFCs
addressed in this rule are listed as acceptable or acceptable subject
to use conditions in the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire
suppression and explosion protection agents, sterilants, and adhesives,
coatings and inks sectors. This in addition to the proposed
unacceptability of HCFC-containing refrigerants in MVAC systems (see
section V.B. of this preamble).

A. What are the proposed modifications to the listings for the three
HCFCs and in which end-uses?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b,
and HCFC-22, as well as blends that contain these substances, from
acceptable to unacceptable in all sectors \56\ except refrigeration and
air conditioning. EPA is not addressing HCFC use for refrigeration and
air conditioning because CAA section 605(a) and our implementing
regulations allows for continuing use of HCFCs to service equipment. We
are proposing that the listings would be modified 60 days following
issuance of a final rule promulgating this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ These three HCFCs have previously been listed as
unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for HCFCs?

    EPA is proposing to modify the listings for these three HCFCs and
blends containing these HCFCs to align the SNAP listings with other
Title VI regulations, specifically section 605 and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A and section 610 and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C.
1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the Three HCFCs With Regulations
Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610
    CAA Section 605(a) explicitly prohibits the introduction into
interstate commerce or the use of any class II substance as of January
1, 2015, unless such substance:
    (1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled;
    (2) is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in
the production of other chemicals;
    (3) is used as a refrigerant in appliances manufactured prior to
January 1, 2020; or
    (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a fire suppression agent for
nonresidential applications in accordance with section 612(c).

Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to January 1, 2010, the
prohibitions on use and introduction into interstate commerce for HCFC-
141b, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142b that has not been used, recovered, and
recycled. See 40 CFR 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration and air
conditioning uses, EPA's implementing regulations prohibit the use and
introduction into interstate commerce of these HCFCs, unless used,
recovered, and recycled, in equipment manufactured on or after January
1, 2010. EPA's proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-141b, HCFC-22,
and HCFC-142b, including blends that contain these HCFCs, in various
applications is consistent with the accelerated dates contained in our
implementing regulations and covers end-uses where these HCFCs have
previously been listed as acceptable as aerosols, refrigerants, foam
blowing agents, fire suppressants, cleaning solvents, sterilants, and
adhesives, coatings and inks.

    Section 605(a) complements section 610, which prohibited the sale
and distribution, as well as offer for sale and distribution, in
interstate commerce of aerosol products and pressurized dispensers
containing a class II substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic foam
products containing or manufactured with a class II substance, with
limited exceptions.\57\ This statutory prohibition took effect on
January 1, 1994. Consequently, most foams and aerosols have not used
HCFCs since 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and also
authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific circumstances. For
the complete list of exceptions, see EPA's implementing regulations
at 40 CFR part 82, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that other HCFCs are not yet subject to the use and
interstate commerce prohibitions in section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g),
EPA is not proposing to change the SNAP listings for HCFCs other than
HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 and blends containing those substances at
this time. EPA may revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs in a later
rulemaking as appropriate.
2. Anticipated Effects
    EPA does not anticipate that these changes will have a significant
effect on the use of HCFC-141b, -142b, and -22 since existing
regulations limit the use of these three HCFCs (unless used, recovered,
and recycled) in almost all end-uses in the United States (see 40 CFR
82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed in this rulemaking, EPA is not
aware of anyone using recovered, recycled or reclaimed HCFC-22, HCFC-
141b and HCFC-142b. In addition, as a result of the use restrictions in
CAA section 605 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale and
distribution restrictions on certain products containing or
manufactured with these substances in CAA section 610 and 40 CFR part
82 subpart C, most sectors have taken significant steps to transition
to non-ODS substitutes. For example, HCFCs in aerosol applications have
been replaced by HCs, HFO-1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and HFC-152a,
excluding some niche technical applications that still rely on HCFCs
not addressed in this action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have largely
been replaced by, among other things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice-
1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any remaining HCFC use in this sector is
limited to HCFCs not addressed in this action. For these reasons, we
believe it is technically feasible for sources to comply with the
proposed changes to the listings for these three HCFCs within 60 days
of a final rule issued consistent with this proposal.
    EPA seeks comment on its proposal to modify the listings for HCFC-
141b, -142b, -22, and blends containing these substances. EPA is
particularly interested in comments on both the scope of the proposed
modifications and the timing.

VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports and imports?

    The requirements of the SNAP program apply to both exports and
imports. EPA understands that some manufacturers may be interested in
whether the listing decisions, if finalized as proposed, would apply to
their products. EPA has previously responded to comments about the
applicability of the SNAP program to products destined for export. Most
recently, in a final rule issued December 20, 2011, EPA responded to a
comment concerning whether appliances manufactured for export should be
allowed to have larger charge sizes than those being sold in the United
States (and thus not have to comply with the use conditions being
established in that rule). EPA stated that:
    Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is
applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate
commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as: 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 the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the
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. This definition applies to any appliances produced
in the United States, including appliances that will be exported. (76
FR 78846)
    Therefore, EPA concluded that the same use conditions apply to
appliances being exported.
    The range of sectors and end-uses covered by the SNAP program
varies. Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration and air conditioning
sector, includes appliances charged by OEMs and appliances typically
field-charged. Some appliances charged by OEMs are hermetically sealed
and other appliances are not. Furthermore, these appliances differ from
products such as aerosols or foams because of the potential for
servicing the appliances throughout their use. Some manufacturers of
motor vehicle air conditioners identified a potential concern that
there may be a lack of servicing infrastructure for low-GWP
alternatives in markets outside the U.S. EPA recognizes that the
transition to alternatives may occur at a different pace in different
global markets. For example, the European Union is planning to
transition to low-GWP alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which is several
years earlier than what EPA is proposing. However, other countries have
not indicated any specific plan to transition to low-GWP alternatives
for MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC-134a would be listed as
unacceptable in model year 2021 and the unacceptability listing would
include MVACs that will be exported.
    EPA applies the SNAP requirements equally to imports and exports.
However, EPA understands the concerns for proper infrastructure for
servicing appliances in markets outside the U.S. EPA believes there is
ample time between now and model year 2021 for such infrastructure to
be established. EPA welcomes comments and specific information on this
topic.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' It raises novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
    EPA conducted an analysis \58\ that considered the economic impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities, as further discussed in the
section C below. The analysis also considered that, specific to
refrigerants used in air conditioning systems for newly manufactured
light-duty vehicles, there are considerable environmental benefits of a
transition to alternative refrigerants and there are costs associated
with those substitutions. Based on recent information in manufacturers'
product

plans, a limited number of manufacturers may have been planning to meet
the GHG standards but still continue to use HFC-134a beyond MY 2021 for
a limited number of their models. However, we believe there is time for
any such manufacturers to make appropriate adjustments. These
manufacturers could incur costs attributable to this proposal
(representing the proposed requirement to cease use of HFC-134a by MY
2021), but there would be environmental benefits in the form of
increased reductions of GHG emissions from MVAC systems which would not
otherwise occur, assuming these manufacturers also continue with their
plans to achieve the reductions by means other than substitution of
MVAC refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This proposed rule is an Agency determination. It contains no new
requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This Information
Collection Request (ICR) included five types of respondent reporting
and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission
of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test
marketing activity, recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to
use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small volume uses. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and
48 CFR Chapter 15.C.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After conducting an analysis \59\ that considered the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The requirements of this proposed rule with
respect to HFCs, if finalized as proposed, would impact manufacturers
of some consumer and technical aerosol products, retail food
refrigeration equipment, vending machines, motor vehicles, and products
containing phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, polyurethane, and
polystyrene foams. The requirements of this proposed rule with respect
to HCFCs, if finalized as proposed, would affect manufacturers of
aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire suppression, and adhesives,
coatings, and inks. This rule's provisions do not create enforceable
requirements for refrigeration and air conditioning technicians, but
they would indirectly affect technicians servicing motor vehicle air
conditioning systems, retail food refrigeration equipment, and vending
machines where the technician, rather than the refrigeration or AC
equipment owner, purchases servicing equipment for different
refrigerants. EPA expects these indirect impacts on technicians are
minimal, because the transitions to different refrigerants required by
this rule are already occurring due to other regulations (e.g., light
duty vehicle GHG rule) and corporate social responsibility initiatives
(e.g., Consumer Goods Forum pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and
because many of the still-acceptable alternatives are already used for
these refrigeration or air conditioning equipment types. Further, most
acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can be recovered and serviced using
equipment that service technicians already own. In some uses, there is
no significant impact of the proposed rule because the substitutes
proposed to be prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use of HFC-134a as
a propellant in consumer aerosol products, use of HFC-134a as a foam
blowing agent in various polyurethane foams). A significant portion of
the businesses regulated under this rule are not small businesses
(e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers). About 500,000 small
businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although more than 99%
of small businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be
expected to experience zero compliance costs. EPA continues to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcomes comments on issues related to such impacts, in
particular technical challenges, including time to transition, that may
exist for some small entities but not all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or
tribal governments. The enforceable requirements of this proposed rule
related to prohibiting certain substitutes, including HFC-134a, R-404A
and R-507A, would require new equipment to be manufactured using other
available options but would not require changes to existing equipment
that is already manufactured or purchased. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This regulation applies directly
to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental
entities.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directly to
facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from State and
local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule restricts the use
of certain substitutes that have greater overall risks for human health
and the environment, primarily due to their high global warming
potential. The reduction in GHG emissions would provide climate
benefits for all people, including benefits for children and future
generations. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-
reviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to
the alternatives addressed in this action.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol uses are not related to the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. For the end-uses that are
related to energy effects such as refrigeration and air conditioning, a
number of alternatives are available to replace those refrigerants that
are proposed as unacceptable in this action; many of the alternatives
are as energy efficient or more energy efficient than the substitutes
being proposed as unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this rule
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rule does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. This proposed rule, if finalized, would prohibit a number
of substances with ODPs or high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and GWP
emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and
provide climate benefits.

IX. References

    This preamble references the following documents, which are also in
the Air Docket at the address listed in Section I.B.1. Unless specified
otherwise, all documents are available electronically through the
Federal Docket Management System, Docket  EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0198.

Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries
of Recent Scientific and Papers, 2013.
Ben and Jerry's, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Freezers. This document is
accessible at http://www.benjerry.com/values/how-we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers.
CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate-Friendly Alternatives in
Commercial Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 December 2012. This
document is accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/FINAL%20REPORT%20Commercial%20Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This document is accessible
at: http://assets.coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri-report.pdf.
Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 Millionth HFC-Free Cooler
Globally, Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, January 22, 2014.
This document is accessible at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2.
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol
Pressurized Products Survey--61st Annual Products Survey. April 15,
2012.
Daimler, ``Climate Change: EU Scientists Say Daimler's Safety
Concerns About New Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,'' Stephen
Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily Environment Report, March 11, 2014. This
document is accessible at http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname=dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split=0.
Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 May 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This document is accessible at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTM.
Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. Refrigerants. March 13, 2014.
EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Technical Support Document. December 7, 2009. This document is
accessible at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of Refrigerant Reclamation 2000-2012.
This data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf.
EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs under the Montreal Protocol,
June, 2013.
EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule,
June 2014.
EPA, Greenchill. ``Advanced Refrigeration''. This document is
accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_storecertprogram08232011.pdf.

EPA Memorandum: ``Notes from Meeting with Nissan Concerning
Alternative Refrigerant Transition'', Tad Wysor, April 2014.
GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Alternatives Policy
Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, October 2008.
Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview--Honeywell Solstice[supreg]
Propellant. EPA meeting. February 27, 2014.
ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the U.S. Aerosols Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the U.S. Foams Industry.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S Commercial
Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioning Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. May, 2014.
ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.
ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory
Options to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. April,
2014.
ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost-Analysis for Regulatory Options
to Change Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives. June, 2014.
IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe
K. (eds). Published: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
(IGES), Japan. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M.,
G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and
P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
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).
Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and
Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012.
Nelson, Gabe ``Automakers' switch to new refrigerant will accelerate
with EPA credits, European mandate'' Automobile News, December 30,
2013. This document is accessible at http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/312309996/warmingto-the-idea.
NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/.
Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ``Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone
Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.'' Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.
UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options