the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria
(e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for these alternatives
may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses
Considered in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Flexible PU
(a) Environmental Impacts
    Methylene chloride contains chlorine and thus could have an ODP. We
are unaware of a calculated ODP for methylene chloride in the peer-
reviewed literature, but it has historically been considered negligibly
small.\200\ Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene
chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing and
could have a detectible impact on the ozone layer,\201\ despite the
historical assumption of negligible ODP. For flexible polyurethane,
available substitutes include acetone, Exxsol blowing agents,
CO2, ecomateTM, HFC-152a, HFO-1336mzz(Z),
methylal, saturated light HCs (C3-C6), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water. Of the other available alternatives for
flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene contains
chlorine and thus might have an ODP. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 and estimates of
its maximum potential impact on the ozone layer indicate a
statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that of other
substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to be non-ozone-
depleting.202 203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety.
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is
accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
    \201\ Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. Chipperfield,
S.A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ``New ozone-
destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by treaty.''
ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216130241.htm.
    \202\ 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.
    \203\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methylene chloride has a GWP of approximately nine. As shown in
Table 21, other acceptable alternatives have GWPs that are comparable
or lower than methylene chloride's GWP of nine except for HFC-152a,
which has a GWP of 124.

  Table 21--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Methylene Chloride Compared to Other Foam Blowing Agents in Flexible PU
                             Foams, Integral Skin PU Foams, and Polyolefin Foams \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Blowing agents                  GWP             ODP                VOC                 Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylene Chloride.................               9         unknown  No..................  Proposed
                                                                                unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Flexible PU Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone; CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a;              0-124       0-0.00034  No..................  No change.
 Methylal; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-
 trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water.
AB Technology; Exxsol Blowing                  >1-9               0  Yes.................  No change.
 Agents; HFO-1336mzz(Z); Methylal;
 Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6
 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Integral Skin PU Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone; CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid;           0-124       0-0.00034  No..................  No change.
 HFO-1234ze; HFO-1336mzz(Z) HFC-
 152a; Methyl Formate; trans-1-
 chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene\
 1\; Water.
AB Technology; Exxsol Blowing                  >1-9               0  Yes.................  No change.
 Agents; Formic Acid; HFO-
 1336mzz(Z); Methylal; Saturated
 Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Polyolefin Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2; Ecomate; HFO-1234ze; HFC-152a;           0-124               0  No..................  No change.
 Water.
Exxsol Blowing Agents; Formic Acid;           0-120               0  Yes.................  No change.
 HFO-1234ze; HFC-152a/Saturated
 Light Hydrocarbon Blends;
 Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or
  additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.

    Methylene chloride is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. With the exception of HCs, Exxsol
blowing agents, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and methylal, the other alternatives
contain compounds that are excluded from the definition of VOC. The
manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-
1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under those regulations. As
provided in our decisions listing these substitutes as acceptable, we
determined that emissions of these alternatives in this end use would
not pose a significantly greater risk than that posed by foam blowing
agents that are not VOCs.
(b) Flammability
    Methylene chloride exhibits no flash point under standard testing
conditions and thus is considered nonflammable, although it does
exhibit lower and upper flammability limits of 13 percent and 23
percent, respectively. Of the various alternatives,
ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, HCs, and
methylal 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.
(c) Toxicity
    Health effects of concern with methylene chloride include cancer,
liver, and kidney effects (longer-term exposure) and neurotoxic effects
(acute exposure), in addition to irritation to the skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract. Other alternatives for this end-use have potential
health effects such as impacts on body weight, mononuclear infiltration
of heart tissue, neurotoxic effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes,
and respiratory tract; no other alternatives in this end-use have
evidence of cancer as a health effect. Toxicity is not a significant
concern in the workplace for methylene chloride or for the other
available alternatives because they may be used for blowing flexible PU
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits.
Workplace exposure limits for the other available alternatives range
from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. Methylene chloride's workplace exposure
limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. (8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a 15-minute
period. Methylene chloride is regulated for its toxicity as a hazardous
air pollutant under the CAA and potentially as a U-listed hazardous
waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). None of the other alternative blowing
agents are regulated as hazardous air pollutants or as U-listed
hazardous wastes.
    In the initial SNAP rulemaking, EPA listed methylene chloride as
acceptable in this end-use, citing the presence of the OSHA regulations
as sufficient to address workplace risk. Information regarding general
population risk was not available for methylene chloride or for any of
the other alternatives at the time EPA listed them as acceptable for
this end use.
    Since EPA's initial listing decision for methylene chloride in
flexible PU foam, the Agency has separately issued a health-based
residual risk standard under section 112 of the CAA for flexible PU
foam production. (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production, (79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014). In that
regulation, EPA examined the risk to the general population and
determined to prohibit the use of HAP-based blowing products, including
methylene chloride, as auxiliary blowing agents in flexible PU
slabstock foam production operations at major sources. Because EPA has
separately determined in setting a risk-based standard that methylene
chloride cannot be used as a blowing agent by major sources for
production of flexible PU slabstock foam, we are proposing to change
the status of methylene chloride in this end-use on the basis that it
poses significantly more risk than other available alternatives.
ii. Integral Skin PU
(a) Environmental Impacts
    Methylene chloride contains chlorine and thus could have an ODP. We
are unaware of a calculated ODP for methylene chloride in the peer-
reviewed literature, but it has historically been considered negligibly
small.\204\ Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene
chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing and
could have a detectible impact on the ozone layer,\205\ despite the
historical assumption of negligible ODP. For integral skin PU,
available alternatives include acetone, CO2,
ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, formic acid, HFC-152a,
HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), methylal, methyl formate, saturated
light HCs (C3-C6), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water.
Of the other available alternatives for flexible PU, only trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1ene contains chlorine and thus might have
an ODP. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of 0.00024
to 0.00034 and estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone
layer indicate a statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that
of other substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to be non-
ozone-depleting.206 207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on Chemical Safety.
Environmental Health Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second
edition. World Health Organization, 1996. This document is
accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm.
    \205\ Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. Chipperfield,
S.A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ``New ozone-
destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by treaty.''
ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216130241.htm.
    \206\ 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.
    \207\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methylene chloride has a GWP of approximately nine. As shown in
Table 21, other acceptable alternatives have GWPs that are comparable
or lower than methylene chloride's GWP of nine except for HFC-152a,
which has a GWP of 124.
    Methylene chloride is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. With the exception of HCs, Exxsol
blowing agents, formic acid, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and methylal, the other
alternatives contain compounds that are exempt from the definition of
VOC. The manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to exempt
HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under those regulations. As
provided in our decisions listing these alternatives as acceptable, we
determined that emissions of these alternatives in this end-use would
not pose a significantly greater risk than that posed by foam blowing
agents that are not VOCs.
(b) Flammability
    Methylene chloride exhibits no flash point under standard testing
conditions and thus is considered nonflammable, although it does
exhibit lower and upper flammability limits of 13 percent and 23
percent, respectively. Of the

various alternatives, acetone, methyl formate, ecomateTM,
Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, HCs, and methylal are flammable, and
CO2, formic acid, HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), trans-1-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water 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.
(c) Toxicity
    Health effects of concern with methylene chloride include cancer,
liver, and kidney effects (longer-term exposure) and neurotoxic effects
(acute exposure), in addition to irritation to the skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract. Other alternatives for this end-use have potential
health effects such as impacts on body weight, mononuclear infiltration
of heart tissue, neurotoxic effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes,
and respiratory tract; no other alternatives in this end-use have
evidence of cancer as a health effect. Toxicity is not a significant
concern in the workplace for methylene chloride or for the other
available alternatives because they may be used for blowing integral
skin PU consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure
limits. Workplace exposure limits for the other available alternatives
range from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. Methylene chloride's workplace
exposure limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. (8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a
15-minute period. Methylene chloride is regulated for its toxicity as a
hazardous air pollutant under the CAA and potentially as a U-listed
hazardous waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). None of the other
alternative blowing agents are regulated as hazardous air pollutants or
as U-listed hazardous wastes.
    Methylene chloride is the only acceptable alternative in this end-
use that is a carcinogen. On this basis, we are proposing that
methylene chloride poses significantly greater toxicity risks than the
other alternatives available for this end use. The risk posed by
methylene chloride and the other alternatives based on the other SNAP
review criteria are not significantly different. Because of the
significantly greater toxicity risk posed by methylene chloride, we
believe it poses significantly greater overall risk than other
available substitutes and we are proposing to change the status to
unacceptable.
iii. Polyolefin Foam
(a) Environmental Impacts
    Methylene chloride contains chlorine and thus could have an ODP. We
are unaware of a calculated ODP for methylene chloride in the peer-
reviewed literature, but it has historically been considered negligibly
small.\208\ Recent research indicates that emissions of methylene
chloride from multiple industrial sources have been increasing and
could have a detectible impact on the ozone layer,\209\ despite the
historical assumption of negligible ODP. In polyolefin foam, available
alternatives include CO2, ecomateTM, Exxsol
blowing agents, methyl formate, HFC-152a, blends of HFC-152a and
saturated light HCs, HFO-1234ze(E), saturated light HCs (C3-C6), trans-
1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water. Of the other available
alternatives for flexible PU, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-
1ene contains chlorine and thus might have an ODP. Trans-1-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 and
estimates of its maximum potential impact on the ozone layer indicate a
statistically insignificant impact, comparable to that of other
substitutes in the same end-use that are considered to be non-ozone-
depleting.210 211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ INCHEM, 1996.
    \209\ Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Chipperfield,
S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015; This document is accessible online
at http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ``New ozone-
destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by treaty.''
ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This document is accessible online
at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216130241.htm.
    \210\ 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.
    \211\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methylene chloride has a GWP of approximately nine. As shown in
Table 21, the other acceptable substitutes have GWPs that are
comparable or lower than methylene chloride's GWP of nine except for
HFC-152a, which has a GWP of 124.
    Methylene chloride is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. With the exception of HCs, HC blends,
and Exxsol blowing agents, the other alternatives contain compounds
that are exempted from the definition of VOC. The manufacturer of HFO-
1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the
definition of VOC under those regulations. As provided in our decisions
listing these alternatives as acceptable, we determined that emissions
of these alternatives in this end-use would not pose a significantly
greater risk than that posed by foam blowing agents that are not VOCs.
(b) Flammability
    Methylene chloride exhibits no flash point under standard testing
conditions and thus is considered nonflammable, although it does
exhibit lower and upper flammability limits of 13 percent and 23
percent, respectively. Of the various alternatives, blends of HFC-152a
and HCs, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, HFC-152a, HCs,
and methyl formate are flammable, and CO2, HFO-1234ze(E),
trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water 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.
(c) Toxicity
    Health effects of concern with methylene chloride include cancer,
liver, and kidney effects (longer-term exposure) and neurotoxic effects
(acute exposure), in addition to irritation to the skin, eyes, and
respiratory tract. Other alternatives for this end-use have potential
health effects such as impacts on body weight, mononuclear infiltration
of heart tissue, neurotoxic effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes,
and respiratory tract; no other alternatives in this end-use have
evidence of cancer as a health effect. Toxicity is not a significant
concern in the workplace for methylene chloride or for the other
available alternatives because they may be used for blowing polyolefin
foam consistent with required or recommended workplace exposure limits.
Workplace exposure limits for the other available alternatives range
from 100 ppm to 5,000 ppm. Methylene chloride's workplace exposure
limits include a PEL of 25 p.m. (8-hr TWA) and 125 ppm over a 15-minute
period. Methylene chloride is regulated for its toxicity as a hazardous
air pollutant under the CAA and potentially as a U-listed hazardous
waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261.33). None of the other alternative blowing
agents are regulated as hazardous air pollutants or as U-listed
hazardous wastes.
    Methylene chloride is the only acceptable alternative in this end-
use

that is a carcinogen. On this basis, we are proposing that methylene
chloride poses significantly greater toxicity risks than the other
alternatives available for this end use. The risk posed by methylene
chloride and the other alternatives based on the other SNAP review
criteria are not significantly different. Because of the significantly
greater toxicity risk posed by methylene chloride, we believe it poses
significantly greater overall risk than other available substitutes and
we are proposing to change the status to unacceptable.
c. When would the status change?
    EPA proposes to change the status of methylene chloride in flexible
PU foam as of 30 days after a final rule is published in the Federal
Register. Because this blowing agent has already been prohibited in
flexible PU foam manufacturing operations for major sources by EPA's
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production (79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014), we expect that most
businesses have already transitioned away from this substitute in that
end-use. This proposed rule does not apply to area sources.
    For integral skin PU foam and polyolefin, we propose the respective
change of status dates to be January 1, 2017, and January 1, 2020.
These dates are consistent with the change of status dates we
previously established for certain HFCs in these end-uses (80 FR 42870;
July 20, 2015). These dates were established considering factors such
as the supply of alternatives, time required for testing of
alternatives, and time required to prepare facilities for use of
flammable foam blowing agents. By proposing to change the status of
methylene chloride from acceptable to unacceptable, we expect that end-
users will consider blowing agents other than methylene chloride as
they plan their transition away from HFCs in these end-uses.
d. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    In a recent rulemaking, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Residual Risk and Technology Review for Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Production, EPA prohibits the use of HAP, including
methylene chloride, as auxiliary blowing agents in slabstock flexible
PU foam production operations at major sources as of November 13, 2014
(79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014). This action is consistent with that
previously issued prohibition.
e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on the proposed dates for a change of
status for methylene chloride (30 days after publication of a final
rule for flexible PU foam, January 1, 2017, for integral skin PU foam,
and January 1, 2020, for polyolefin foam). We request comments on, the
extent to which methylene chloride is currently being used in these
end-uses in integral skin PU, in polyolefin, or by area sources that
manufacture flexible PU foam and the technical challenges that exist
for transitioning from methylene chloride to other available
alternatives.
4. Proposed Application of Listings to Foam Products
    EPA is proposing to apply the unacceptability determinations in
this action for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam. In addition, EPA is proposing to
apply all listings for foam blowing agents codified in the appendices
to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G to such products. This would mean that
closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams
manufactured abroad and imported could not be used in the United States
if the foam blowing agent was listed as unacceptable.
a. What are the affected end-uses?
    The foam sector includes both closed cell and open cell foams.
Closed cell foams are specifically designed to retain the foam blowing
agent in the cells; in insulation foam products, the foam blowing agent
continues to perform a function in providing thermal insulation, once
the foam has already been blown. With open cell foams, the foam blowing
agent completes its function once the foam is blown; almost all of the
foam blowing agent escapes from the open cells prior to import, and any
vestigial amounts remaining do not perform a function.
    Foam blowing end-uses that contain closed-cell foams include rigid
PU spray foam (all three applications described in section VI.C.1);
rigid PU commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid PU marine
flotation foam; rigid PU appliance foam; rigid PU slabstock and other;
rigid PU and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock; polystyrene:
Extruded boardstock and billet; polystyrene: Extruded sheet;
polyolefin; and phenolic insulation board and bunstock. Foam blowing
end-uses containing open cell foams include flexible PU and integral
skin PU. Open cell phenolic, and some other open cell foams also exist
within the SNAP foam blowing end-uses that include closed cell foams.
Integral skin foam may include a rigid surface with an interior
flexible core.
b. How would this proposal change the treatment of foam products under
SNAP?
    Currently, an unacceptable foam blowing agent may not be used to
manufacture products in the United States, whether for domestic use or
for export. However, products made abroad with unacceptable foam
blowing agents may be imported and used in the United States. This is
because EPA has historically interpreted the use prohibitions for this
sector to apply to blowing foam with the foam blowing agent and not to
the use of products made with foam. For example, commercial
refrigerators containing appliance foam blown with an unacceptable
blowing agent may be imported into and used in the United States,
though commercial refrigerators manufactured in the United States may
not be manufactured with foam blown with that same agent.
    If this proposal were to be finalized as proposed, use of closed
cell foam products (e.g., manufactured rigid PU insulation or XPS
boardstock) or products that contain closed cell foam (e.g., household
and commercial appliances, boats) manufactured with an unacceptable
foam blowing agent on or after the specified date would be subject to
the use prohibitions under SNAP. This would include, but would not be
limited to, incorporating a closed cell foam blown with an unacceptable
blowing agent into a subsequent product and installing a closed cell
foam product or product containing closed cell foam. Products
manufactured prior to the specified date would not be subject to the
use prohibitions. In addition, under this proposal the use prohibitions
would not apply to consumers once a product had been installed.
c. How do other stratospheric ozone protection requirements apply to
foam products?
    Several provisions of CAA Title VI and EPA's implementing
regulations are relevant to HCFC foam products. Under regulations
implementing CAA section 611, EPA requires labeling of products that
contain an ODS and those that are manufactured with an ODS. EPA
determined that open cell foams blown with an ODS must be labeled as a

product manufactured with an ODS. (58 FR 8136, 8143-8150, February 11,
1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014) In contrast, closed
cell foam products blown with an ODS must be labeled as a product
containing an ODS for labeling purposes. (58 FR 8136, 8150-8151,
February 11, 1993; 79 FR 64253, 64258-64259, October 28, 2014) As of
January 1, 2015, any product containing a closed cell foam blown with
an HCFC must be labeled as a product containing an ozone-depleting
substance under the regulations at 40 CFR 82.106 implementing CAA
section 611.
    Section 610 restricts sale and distribution and offers of sale and
distribution of certain products containing or manufactured with CFCs
and HCFCs.\212\ Section 610(d)(3)(A) explicitly provides an exception
for foam insulation products containing HCFCs. EPA has implemented this
restriction and the exception for HCFC foam insulation products through
its Nonessential Products Ban regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82
subpart C. These regulations define foam insulation product as a
product containing or consisting of the following types of foam:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ Section 610 does not address products containing or
manufactured with substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Closed cell rigid polyurethane foam;
     Closed cell rigid polystyrene boardstock foam;
     Closed cell rigid phenolic foam; and
     Closed cell rigid polyethylene foam when such foam is
suitable in shape, thickness and design to be used as a product that
provides thermal insulation around pipes used in heating, plumbing,
refrigeration, or industrial process systems.
    CAA section 605(a) prohibits the introduction into interstate
commerce or use of any class II substance effective 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).
    The section 605(a) implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part
82, subpart A restrict the use of virgin HCFCs to air conditioning,
refrigeration, and fire suppression applications, with minor
exceptions. Thus, while the Nonessential Products Ban does not apply to
HCFC insulating foams, section 605(a) and its implementing regulations
prohibit the use of HCFCs for blowing foam in the United States. The
combined effect of the Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605(a)
implementing regulations is that HCFC foam insulation products may be
imported, sold, and distributed in the United States but cannot be
manufactured in the United States.
    In the preamble to a July 11, 2000, SNAP proposed rule, EPA
reviewed its authority under CAA section 610 and noted that HCFC
insulating foams were exempt from regulation under that section of the
statute. EPA stated that ``Title VI of the Act thus does not provide
EPA with the authority to prevent imports of products containing those
foams'' (65 FR 42653, 42656). EPA did not, however, base this statement
on a full examination of the various authorities under Title VI. In
taking final action on that proposal, EPA noted that while under
section 610 it could not ban the sale of HCFC foam insulation products,
section 610 ``does not address EPA's ability to regulate the transition
from use of ODS to alternatives in the manufacturing of products such
as foam.'' EPA further noted: ``Section 612 can restrict the use of a
substitute in a product regardless of whether or not that product is
considered nonessential under Section 610'' (69 FR 58275, September 30,
2004).
d. How is EPA reexamining treatment of foam products under SNAP?
    In the August 6, 2014, NPRM (79 FR 46126; 46154), EPA proposed to
consider use of a foam blowing agent to include use of closed cell foam
products or products containing closed cell foam. In response to that
proposal, some commenters supported applying the unacceptability
determinations to the use of closed cell foam products or products
containing closed cell foam with unacceptable foam blowing agents, on
the basis that it would maintain a ``level playing field'' for
domestically manufactured products made with lower-GWP foam blowing
agents that were going to compete with imported products. Some
commenters also supported extending such a prohibition to open cell
foams, stating that there was still some foam blowing agent left in the
foam and citing the negative impacts of allowing cheaper imported
products containing unacceptable foam blowing agents.
    Other commenters opposed applying unacceptability determinations to
anything other than the act of blowing foam in the United States. These
commenters stated that this would be a significant departure from the
Agency's previous interpretation and suggested that EPA needed to
explain the basis for such a change. For example, one commenter stated
that ``without any legal rationale, EPA has proposed to reverse its
long-standing interpretation of the Clean Air Act with respect to the
import of products containing HCFC-141b as a foam-blowing agent.'' In
addition, some commenters pointed out that the proposal only allowed 60
days before this change in interpretation would apply to HCFC-141b,
which they viewed as insufficient time to adjust. EPA did not take
final action in the July 20, 2015, final rule (80 FR 42870) but instead
elected to continue assessing the merits of the change.
    In this action, EPA is again proposing to apply listings and
prohibitions for foam blowing agents to use of closed cell foam
products and products containing closed cell foam. To the extent EPA's
earlier statements regarding Title VI reflect an interpretation that
the agency could not address imported closed cell foam products or
products containing closed cell foam under any provision of Title VI,
EPA is proposing to change that interpretation.
    Section 612 requires EPA to promulgate regulations prohibiting the
replacement of ODS with certain substitutes and to publish lists of the
substitutes prohibited for specific uses as well as those found
acceptable for those uses. EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR
82.174 state, in part: ``No person may use a substitute after the
effective date of any rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of
unacceptable substitutes'' (40 CFR 82.174(d)). The SNAP regulations
define ``use'' of a substitute as including, but not being limited to,
``use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-
user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for
other subsequent uses.'' (Sec.  82.172)
    EPA currently treats use of foam blowing agents in the manufacture
of a foam product as covered by the use prohibition. In this action,
EPA is proposing to apply the use prohibition more broadly in the case
of closed cell foam products. With respect to other sectors, EPA has
treated use of a product manufactured with or containing a substance as
constituting use of the substance where the product holds some amount
of the substance, the substance continues to perform its intended
function, and the substance is likely to be emitted in the United
States either during use of the product or at the time of its disposal.
For example, an

aerosol can is manufactured to contain a substance as a propellant, and
then that propellant leaks, is released by the end user during use of
the aerosol can's contents, or is emitted at the time of disposal if it
has not already been used up. In the July 20, 2015 SNAP rule, in
changing the status of certain substances with respect to aerosols, EPA
prohibited use of aerosol products containing those substances, while
stating that products manufactured prior to the change of status date
could still be used after that date (80 FR 42883). By analogy, we are
proposing that ``use'' of a foam blowing agent includes use of a closed
cell foam product manufactured after the specified date. For such
products, the foam blowing agent remains in the cells and continues to
be used for the purpose of insulation during the lifetime of the
product. Furthermore, emissions of the foam blowing agent occur at the
time of disposal of the closed cell foam product. Thus, emissions from
a closed cell product used in the United States can be expected to
occur in the United States regardless of whether the product was
manufactured domestically or abroad. This proposed action would ensure
that products manufactured abroad and subsequently imported would be
treated the same as products manufactured domestically.
    EPA does not propose to treat use of an open cell foam product as
constituting use of the foam blowing agent. The foam blowing agent in
an open cell foam product does not continue to perform its intended
function during the lifetime of the product. Except for insignificant
amounts remaining in the cells, emissions of the foam blowing agent
would occur at the time and place of manufacture. Therefore, we are
proposing to differentiate between closed cell and open cell foam
products for this purpose. This would be consistent with the different
treatment of closed and open cell foam products under the section 611
labeling regulations.
e. When would use of closed cell foam products with unacceptable
blowing agents be unacceptable?
    For changes of status proposed in this rulemaking (section VI.C.1
and VI.C.2), we are proposing that the unacceptability determination
would apply to use of closed cell foam products and products that
contain closed cell foam where the products are manufactured on or
after the change of status date. As noted in the July 15, 2015 SNAP
rule with respect to MVAC and stand-alone refrigeration equipment (80
FR 42884), it is reasonable to allow use of products manufactured
before the change of status date to avoid market disruption, creation
of stranded inventory, and perverse incentives for releasing these
substances to the environment.
    For alternatives that have already been listed as unacceptable with
a change of status date of January 1, 2017,\213\ or earlier--namely,
HCFC blowing agents listed as unacceptable in appendices K, M, Q, and U
to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G, and HFC blowing agents listed as
unacceptable for rigid PU and PIR boardstock, extruded polystyrene
sheet, and phenolic foams in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G--we
are proposing that the unacceptability determination would apply to use
of closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam
manufactured on or after the date one year after the date of
publication of a final rule. This timing is intended to allow importers
and international manufacturers of such products time to adjust their
manufacture and import plans. For substitutes that have already been
listed as unacceptable with a change of status date after January 1,
2017--namely, HFC blowing agents listed as unacceptable in rigid PU
slabstock and other; rigid PU appliance foam; rigid PU commercial
refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid PU marine flotation foam;
polyolefin; and polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet- we are
proposing that the unacceptability determination would apply to use of
closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam
manufactured on or after the change of status date for each end-use
(January 1 of 2019, 2020, or 2021). For the substitutes already listed
as unacceptable, we are proposing to add language regarding use of
products to the relevant tables. We do not intend to re-open the
listing of those substitutes as unacceptable or the change of status
dates for those substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ There will also be a change of status on January 1, 2017
for flexible PU and integral skin PU, but these are open cell foams
and are not part of this proposal for closed cell foams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal. In
particular, we request comment on our proposal to revise our previous
interpretation and to consider use of the foam blowing agent to include
use of closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell
foam. We are also taking comment on whether use of an open cell foam
product should constitute use of the foam blowing agent. Finally, we
request comment on the amount of time provided after which closed cell
foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on
or after the specified dates would be subject to the use prohibitions.

D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection

1. Proposed Listing of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP) as
Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Total Flooding and Streaming
    EPA is proposing to list 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene
(hereinafter referred to as 2-BTP) as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, for use in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in total
flooding fire suppression systems. In addition, EPA proposes to list 2-
BTP as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in aircraft as a
streaming agent. EPA is reviewing additional potential fire suppression
applications for 2-BTP but is not taking action on those other uses in
this proposed rule.
a. What are the affected end-uses?
    The fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses addressed in
this action are total flooding and streaming. Total flooding systems,
which historically employed halon 1301 as a fire suppression agent, are
used in both normally occupied and unoccupied areas. In the United
States, approximately 90 percent of installed total flooding systems
protect anticipated hazards from ordinary combustibles (i.e., Class A
fires), while the remaining ten percent protect against applications
involving flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class B fires).\214\ It is
also estimated that approximately 75 percent of total flooding systems
protect electronics (e.g., computers, telecommunications, process
control areas) while the remaining 25 percent protect other
applications, primarily in civil aviation (e.g., engine nacelles/APUs,
cargo compartments, lavatory trash receptacles), military weapons
systems (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces on ships, aircraft
engines and tanks), oil/gas and manufacturing industries (e.g., gas/oil
pumping, compressor stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery space,
cargo pump rooms). Streaming applications, which have historically used
halon 1211 as an extinguishing agent, include portable fire

extinguishers designed to protect against specific hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to Replace Halon
Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
    The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when
evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP;
local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog
formation from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \215\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses may be found in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses
Considered in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Total Flooding
(a) Environmental Impacts
    In addition to halon 1301, the current market for total flooding
systems also includes HCFCs, HFCs, inert gases, and a variety of NIK
extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered aerosols, foams, water).\216\ 2-
BTP has a GWP of 0.23-0.26 and a lower climate impact compared to other
alternatives (e.g., HFC-227ea) used as total flooding and streaming
agents. As shown in Table 22, the GWPs of other total flooding
alternatives range from <1 to 3,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.

        Table 22--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of 2-BTP Compared to Other Total Flooding and Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fire suppressants                 GWP             ODP                VOC                 Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-BTP..............................   \1\ 0.23-0.26          0.0028  Yes.................  Acceptable, subject
                                                                                to use conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone).              <1               0  Yes.................  No change.
CF3I...............................             0.4           0.008  Yes.................  No change.
CO2................................               1               0  No..................  No change.
HCFC Blend A \2\...................           1,546           0.048  No..................  No change.
HFC-227ea..........................           3,220               0  No..................  No change.
HFC-125............................           3,500               0  No..................  No change.
Water, Inert gases, Powdered                      0               0  No..................  No change.
 aerosols A-E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HCFC Blend B \3\...................              77         0.00098  No..................  No change.
HFC-227ea..........................           3,220               0  No..................  No change.
HFC-236fa..........................           9,810               0  No..................  No change.
FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone).              <1               0  Yes.................  No change.
CF3I...............................             0.4           0.008  Yes.................  No change.
CO2................................               1               0  No..................  No change.
Water..............................               0               0  No..................  No change.
H Galden HFPEs.....................     2,790-6,230               0  No..................  No change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GWP range represents GWPs for 30[deg]N to 60[deg]N and 60[deg]S to 60[deg]N emissions scenarios for a 100-
  year time horizon. A tropospherically well-mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.\217\
\2\ HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75%), HCFC-22 (82%), HCFC-124 (9.5%), and D-limonene
  (3.75%).
\3\ HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123.

    In addition to global impacts on the atmosphere, EPA evaluated
potential impacts of emissions of 2-BTP on local air quality. 2-BTP is
a VOC and is not excluded from that definition under CAA regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. EPA compared the annual VOC emissions from the use
of 2-BTP as a total flooding agent to other anthropogenic sources of
VOC emissions considering both worst case and more realistic scenarios.
Under either scenario, emissions are a small fraction of a percentage
(5.6 x 10\-5\ percent to 2.1 x 10\-3\ percent) of all anthropogenic VOC
emissions in the United States in 2014.218 219 Given this
emission level, we determined it was not necessary to perform an
assessment of the effect of these emissions on ambient ozone levels;
any effect would be insignificant. This is particularly true since most
releases of 2-BTP are expected to be at altitude, not in the lower
troposphere. Other acceptable fire suppression agents currently in use
in this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6-perfluoroketone), and thus, use
of 2-BTP would not pose more risk than use of other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ``OH reaction rate
constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone depletion potentials and
global warming potentials of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,'' J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.
    \218\ ICF, 2016j. Analysis of annual VOC emissions from the use
of 2-BTP.
    \219\ Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions for the
United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x10\6\ MT) as reported in
the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Flammability
    2-BTP is nonflammable, as are all other available total flooding
agents.
(c) Toxicity
    When identifying potential alternatives, toxicity is an important
characteristic to consider for manufacturing personnel, service
technicians, and end users. Typical concerns include residual oxygen
concentration in the protected space

after discharge and cardiac effects as a consequence of absorption of
the agent into the bloodstream.
    EPA has evaluated the risks associated with potential exposures to
2-BTP during production operations and the filling of fire
extinguishers as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the
system during maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing system.
EPA's review of the human health impacts of 2-BTP, including the
summary of available toxicity studies, and EPA's review of the human
health impacts of 2-BTP is in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663).220 221
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
    \221\ ICF, 2016l. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on
Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces.
Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the MSDS, exposure to 2-BTP through ocular or dermal
absorption, inhalation, or ingestion is unlikely to be harmful.
However, the most likely pathway of exposure is through inhalation,
which may cause central nervous system effects, such as dizziness,
confusion, physical incoordination, drowsiness, anesthesia, or
unconsciousness. EPA uses the NOAEL value as the basis to ensure
protection to the worker population. The cardiotoxic Lowest-Observed-
Adverse-Effect-Level (LOAEL) for this agent is 1.0 percent (10,000
ppm), at which level exposure may cause increased sensitivity of the
heart to adrenaline, which might cause irregular heartbeats and
possibly ventricular fibrillation or death; the cardiotoxic NOAEL for
this agent is 0.5 percent (5,000 ppm).
    2-BTP vapors are heavier than air and may reduce oxygen available
for breathing, causing asphyxiation in high concentrations. Such vapors
pose a potential hazard if large volumes are trapped in enclosed or low
places. In addition, as noted above, if person(s) are exposed to high
concentrations, the person(s) may experience central nervous system
effects, such as drowsiness and dizziness, which may result in the
person(s) not realizing that he/she is suffocating. These health
effects after exposure are similar for other common fire suppressants.
    Employees responsible for manufacturing the systems should wear the
appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation. Use of respirators
is recommended during activities in which exposure to the proposed
substitute cannot be controlled through other means. When handling a
leak in a storage container, protective clothing is recommended as well
as vapor-in air detection systems. Gloves (i.e., neoprene, polyvinyl
chloride, or polyvinyl alcohol) should be worn when handling equipment
containing the proposed substitute for prolonged periods.
    For operations requiring regular handling of 2-BTP, engineering
controls should include adequate ventilation systems and enclosed or
confined operations to ensure exposure levels to the proposed
substitute are below the occupational AEL. 2-BTP is not expected to
pose a risk to workers when the engineering controls and PPE
recommendations referenced in the MSDS for this proposed substitute are
followed.
    Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during installation or servicing of
2-BTP total flooding systems for engines and APUs on aircraft. These
are both considered to be unoccupiable areas, meaning personnel cannot
physically occupy these spaces, thus reducing the risk from exposure to
an inadvertent discharge. The risk of accidental activation of the fire
extinguishing system while personnel are present near the protected
space is highly unlikely if proper procedures, including those of the
2-BTP system manufacturer as well as the aircraft manufacturer, are
followed. Instructions on system installation and servicing included in
manuals for the 2-BTP systems should be adhered to. In the case of an
inadvertent discharge of the system during maintenance activities on
the fire extinguishing system or surrounding equipment, the cowl doors
that would be open to allow access to the area will allow personnel to
immediately egress and avoid exposure. Protective gloves and tightly
sealed goggles should be worn for installation and servicing
activities, to protect workers in any event of potential discharge of
the proposed substitute, accidental or otherwise. Filling or servicing
operations should be performed in well-ventilated areas.
    2-BTP is not expected to cause a significant risk to human health
in the general population when used as a total flooding fire
extinguishing agent. Disposal of 2-BTP total flooding systems is
subject to local, state, and federal regulations, which ensure that 2-
BTP and water contaminated with 2-BTP are not be dumped into sewers, on
the ground, or into any body of water, but rather taken to a wastewater
treatment facility or disposed of properly. 2-BTP is not considered to
be hazardous waste under EPA regulations implementing RCRA.
    EPA's evaluation indicates that the use of 2-BTP is not expected to
pose a significant toxicity risk to personnel or the general
population. 2-BTP is not expected to cause a significant risk to human
health in the general population when used as a total flooding fire
extinguishing agent in systems designed specifically for engines and
APUs on aircraft. Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely for technicians
during installation or servicing of 2-BTP total flooding systems for
engines and APUs. As indicated by the submitter, the risk of accidental
activation of the fire extinguishing system while personnel are present
near the protected space is highly unlikely if proper procedures are
followed. Proper instructions on system installation and servicing
included in manuals for the 2-BTP systems should be adhered to. The
locations of the 2-BTP bottles in the engine and APU compartments will
vary by airplane model. The engine bottles could be installed inside or
outside the pressurized volume, but they are connected through piping
to the engines. APU bottles are typically installed forward of the APU
firewall, outside of the pressurized volume of the plane. The bottles
are hermetically sealed and the piping system is pressure tested,
mitigating the potential for any leak of 2-BTP from the system.
According to the submitter, in the case of an inadvertent discharge of
the system during maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing
system or surrounding equipment, the cowl doors that would be open to
allow access to the area will allow service personnel to immediately
egress and avoid exposure. Furthermore, aircraft maintenance procedures
provide specific instruction to prevent accidental discharge of 2-BTP
systems. It is expected that procedures identified in the MSDS for 2-
BTP and good manufacturing practices will be adhered to, and that the
appropriate safety and PPE (e.g., protective gloves, tightly sealed
goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection
in case of accidental release or insufficient ventilation) consistent
with OSHA guidelines will be used, as applicable, during manufacture
and disposal of 2-BTP total flooding systems.
    The toxicity risks can be minimized through the use conditions
specified in section VI.D.c below. The risks after exposure are common
to many total

flooding agents, including those already listed as acceptable under
SNAP for this same end-use such as C6-perfluoroketone. EPA is proposing
to find 2-BTP acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a total
flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft because
the overall environmental and human health risk posed by the substitute
is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed by other
alternatives listed as acceptable in the same end-use.
ii. Streaming Uses
(a) Environmental Impacts
    In addition to halon 1211, the current market for streaming
applications also includes HCFCs, HFCs, and a variety of other agents
(e.g., dry chemical, CO2, water).\222\ Specific alternatives
used for streaming uses include HCFC Blend B (with an ODP of roughly
0.01 and a GWP of roughly 80), HFC-227ea (with an ODP of zero and a GWP
of 3,220), and C7 Fluoroketone (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of
approximately one). The ODP, GWP, and atmospheric lifetime of 2-BTP and
other alternatives that are also used as total flooding agents are
described above under total flooding applications. 2-BTP has a lower
climate impact a shorter atmospheric lifetime compared to other
alternatives in this end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding local air quality impacts, EPA compared the annual VOC
emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a streaming agent to other
anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions considering both worst case and
more realistic scenarios. Under either scenario, emissions are a small
fraction of a percentage (7.4 x 10-5 percent to 2.1 x
10-3 percent) of all anthropogenic VOC emissions in the
United States in 2014.\223\ Given this emission level, we determined it
was not necessary to perform an assessment of the effect of these
emissions on ambient ozone levels; any effect would be insignificant.
This is particularly true since most releases of 2-BTP are expected to
be at altitude, not in the lower troposphere. Other acceptable fire
suppression agents currently in use in this end-use are also VOC (e.g.,
C6-perfluoroketone, C7-fluoroketone), and thus, use of 2-BTP would not
pose more risk than use of other alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ ICF, 2016j. Analysis of annual VOC emissions from the use
of 2-BTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Flammability
    2-BTP is nonflammable, as are all other available streaming agents.
(c) Toxicity
    EPA evaluated occupational and general population exposure at
manufacture and at end-use to ensure that the use of 2-BTP as a
streaming agent will not pose unacceptable risks to workers or the
general public. EPA has evaluated the risks associated with potential
exposures to 2-BTP during production operations and the filling of fire
extinguishers as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the
fire extinguisher during maintenance activities.
    2-BTP is not expected to pose a risk to workers during manufacture
when the engineering controls and PPE requirements as also referenced
in the MSDS for this proposed substitute are followed as described
below in section VI.D.1.c.i. The combination of appropriate engineering
controls and the use of PPE will ensure exposure levels to the proposed
substitute are below the occupational AEL. Exposure to 2-BTP is not
likely during installation or servicing of 2-BTP fire extinguishers. As
indicated by the submitter, the risk of accidental activation of the
fire extinguisher while personnel are present in the protected space is
highly unlikely if proper procedures are followed. Proper instructions
on system installation and servicing included in manuals for the 2-BTP
systems should be adhered to.
    EPA also assessed potential end-use exposure scenario, 15-minute
and 30-minute TWA exposures for 2-BTP following potential release of
agent from the handheld extinguisher on-board aircraft. These exposures
were then compared to the cardiotoxic LOAEL for 2-BTP. The modeled 15-
minute and 30-minute exposures for varying ventilation rates were
significantly lower than the LOAEL of 10,000 ppm for 2-BTP, as well as
below the NOAEL of 5,000 ppm. 2-BTP handheld extinguishers must follow
required minimum room volumes established by UL 2129, Halocarbon Clean
Agent Fire Extinguishers,\224\ when discharged into a confined space.
This standard prohibits the exceedance of the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any
fire suppressant (i.e., 10,000 ppm or 1.0% for 2-BTP). Therefore, per
UL 2129, labels for 2-BTP extinguishers will contain the statement,
``Do not use in confined spaces less than 896 cubic feet per
extinguisher.'' Based on the above results, 2-BTP is not expected to
pose significant risk to end users when used as a streaming fire
extinguishing agent in aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ UL, 2005. Standard 2129--Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishers. This document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129_2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are various precautions described above, but the actual use
conditions are described below. The general population risks during
release or disposal of the agent are described in section VI.D.1.b
above. The risks after exposure are common to many streaming agents,
including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same
end-use, such as C6-perfluoroketone. EPA is proposing to find 2-BTP
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a streaming agent on aircraft
because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by the
substitute is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed by
other alternatives listed as acceptable in the same end-use.
c. What are the proposed use conditions?
i. Engine Nacelles and APU Fire Suppression Systems on Aircraft Only
    EPA is proposing to add 2-BTP to the list of acceptable total
flooding substitutes, subject to use conditions. For the total flooding
end-use, the proposed use conditions would require that 2-BTP be used
only for engine nacelles and APU on aircraft.
ii. Handheld Extinguishers in Aircraft Only
    For the streaming end-use, the use condition would require that 2-
BTP be used only for handheld extinguishers in aircraft.
d. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptable subject
to use conditions listing for 2-BTP?
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listing,
EPA is providing the following additional information for
establishments manufacturing, installing and maintaining total flooding
systems using this agent:
     This agent should be used in accordance with the safety
guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems;
     In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
     In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately
flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with

fresh water and move to a non-contaminated area, and medical attention
should be sought if irritation develops or persists;
     Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available.
In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the
eyes, including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area; Exposed persons should remove all contaminated
clothing and footwear to avoid irritation; and medical attention should
be sought if irritation develops or persists;
     Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the
person(s) should consult a physician immediately;
     Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
     Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear
the appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
     All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance
with good industrial hygiene practices; and
     Training for safe handling procedures should be provided
to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent
or extinguishing units filled with the agent.
     Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems
such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches
should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA
standards. Use of this agent should also conform to relevant OSHA
requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and
1910.162.
    In the ``Further Information'' column of the regulatory listing,
EPA is providing the following additional information for
establishments manufacturing, installing and maintaining streaming
agents:
     This agent should be used in accordance with the latest
edition of NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire Extinguishers;
     In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be
immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is
difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention;
     Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available.
In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the
eyes, including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-
contaminated area. Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated
clothing and footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should
be sought if irritation develops or persists;
     Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the
person(s) should consult a physician immediately;
     Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized
engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system
and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential
occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace
atmosphere should be conducted;
     Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear
the appropriate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles,
protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case
of accidental release or insufficient ventilation;
     All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance
with good industrial hygiene practices;
     Training for safe handling procedures should be provided
to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent
or extinguishing units filled with the agent;
     2-BTP use as a streaming fire extinguishing agent in
handheld extinguishers on aircraft should be in accordance with UL 711,
Rating and Testing of Fire Extinguishers \225\ and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance Standard for Hand-Held
Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/AR-01/37),\226\ with regard to the size and
number of extinguishers depending on the size of aircraft. 2-BTP
handheld extinguishers should also follow required minimum room volumes
established by UL 2129, Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, when
discharged into a confined space.\227\ This standard prohibits the
exceedance of the cardiotoxic LOAEL for any fire suppressant (i.e.,
10,000 ppm or 1.0 percent for 2-BTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ UL, 2004. Standard 711--Rating and Testing of Fire
Extinguishers. This document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=711_7.
    \226\ FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum
Performance Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This document is
accessible at: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf.
    \227\ UL, 2005. Standard 2129--Halocarbon Clean Agent Fire
Extinguishers. This document is accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129_2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. When would the listing apply?
    EPA proposes that this listing would apply 30 days after the date
of publication of a final rule. This date, the same as the proposed
effective date of this regulation, allows for the safe use of this
substitute at the earliest opportunity.
f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    As required for a new chemical, the manufacturer of this agent
submitted a Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Premanufacture Notice
(PMN) for review by EPA. The PMN, designated as P-14-260, has completed
EPA review and the manufacturer is presently subject to requirements
contained in a TSCA section 5(e) Consent Order. Other future
manufacturers and processors will be subject to a TSCA section 5(a)(2)
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that is expected to be promulgated in
2016. The requirements of the consent order and SNUR would apply to all
commercial manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use and
disposal of 2-BTP, unless exempted. Consistent with today's proposed
listing, the consent order and SNUR will require use of 2-BTP for
aircraft either (1) as a total flooding agent in engine nacelles and
APUs on aircraft or (2) as a streaming agent in handheld extinguishers
in aircraft. As noted above in section VI.D.1.d, FAA has issued
guidance on the use of hand-held fire extinguishers on aircraft that is
relevant to the streaming uses proposed in this rule.
g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of the proposed listing
decision, including the proposed use conditions.
2. Proposed Change of Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons
    As described in Table 23, EPA is proposing to change the listings
from acceptable to unacceptable for C3F8 (PFC-
218) and C4F10 (PFC-410) in total flooding
systems. We note that these changes of status apply to the manufacture
of new equipment using these agents. Existing equipment that contains
these agents may continue to be used for the remaining lifetime of the
equipment.

    Table 23--Proposed Change of Status Decisions for Total Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           End-use                Substitutes       Proposed decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total flooding...............  PFCs (C3F8 and    Unacceptable as of one
                                C4F10).           year after publication
                                                  of a final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. What is the affected end-use?
    The fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses addressed in
this action is total flooding. The fire suppression industry has
historically used halons, a class of halogenated chemicals containing
bromine, as clean extinguishing agents (i.e., those that do not leave
residue following system discharge) in many different applications.
Halon 1301 has been used in fixed total flooding systems.
    Halons have a unique combination of characteristics including being
electrically non-conductive, dissipating rapidly without residue (i.e.,
clean), efficiently extinguishing most types of fires, and low
toxicity. These agents are extremely effective on ordinary
combustibles, flammable liquids and gases, and electrical fires (i.e.,
Class A, Class B, and Class C fires, respectively). These
characteristics allowed halon systems to be widely used to effectively
protect valuable and sensitive assets in locations such as computer and
control rooms, electronic data processing facilities, museums, military
equipment, shipboard machinery, space, aircraft, and oil and gas
industry facilities.
    Halons have very high ODPs because they contain bromine, which has
a higher reactivity with ozone than chlorine. Specifically, the ODP of
halon 1301 is 15.9.\228\ EPA banned the production and import of newly
produced halons beginning January 1, 1994 (58 FR 65018; December 10,
1993) consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the Montreal
Protocol. In addition, EPA issued regulations codified at 40 CFR part
82 subpart H to reduce emissions of halon through technician training
and proper disposal. The U.S. fire suppression industry supported the
phase out of halon production by working to find effective substitutes
and to reduce unnecessary emissions of halon. Recycled halon is relied
on for continuing uses of halons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ WMO, 2011. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010,
Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project. Geneva, Switzerland,
2011. This document is accessible at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/report.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the early 1994 phaseout of halon production,
industry took early actions to find alternatives including less ozone-
depleting HCFCs, non-ozone-depleting HFCs, as well as a variety of
lower-GWP or no-GWP alternatives (e.g., inert gases, CO2,
powdered aerosols, foams, water). Industry also took actions to
minimize emissions and halon recycling emerged as an important
initiative to both reduce unnecessary emissions, and to ensure supplies
of halons during the transition. Other efforts included changes to
national and international fire codes and standards to discourage the
use of halons for testing and training while supporting the adoption of
the alternatives listed as acceptable in fire suppression and explosion
protection by EPA's SNAP program.
b. Which fire suppressants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable?
    EPA is proposing to list C4F10 (PFC-410) and
C3F8 (PFC-218) as unacceptable in certain uses
for which they are currently listed as acceptable subject to narrowed
use limits.
c. How do the proposed unacceptable fire suppressants compare to other
fire suppressants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria?
    The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when
evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP;
local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog
formation from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem effects, particularly
from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental
and health risks are discussed below. In addition, a technical support
document \229\ that provides the Federal Register citations concerning
data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability)
for acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses may be found in
the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses
Considered in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes
under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    PFCs are fully fluorinated compounds, unlike CFCs, HCFCs, or HFCs.
These chemicals have an ODP of zero, are excluded from the definition
of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, and have high
GWPs (5,000-10,000 times greater than CO2). Although the
actual contributions to global warming depend upon the quantities
emitted, because of their long atmospheric lifetimes, the warming
effects of PFCs are essentially irreversible. As discussed in Section
III above and in EPA's Endangerment Finding (74 FR 66496; December 7,
2009), EPA determined that PFCs are one of the six key well-mixed
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--in addition to CO2,
CH4, N2O, HFCs, and SF6--whose current
and projected concentrations were found to threaten the public health
and welfare of current and future generations.

          Table 24--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of C3F8, and C4F10 Compared to Other Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fire suppressants                GWP             ODP               VOC                  Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3F8, C4F10......................     8,830-8,860               0  No................  Unacceptable.
CF3I.............................             0.4           0.008  Yes...............  No change.
FK-5-1-12mmy2....................              <1               0  No................  No change.
HCFC-124, HCFC Blend A...........       610-1,550      0.048-0.22  No................  No change.
Halotron II, HFC-125, HFC-227ea..     1,600-3,500               0  No................  No change.
HFC-236fa........................           9,810               0  No................  No change.
HFC-23...........................          14,800               0  No................  No change.

Water, Inert gases, Powdered                    0               0  No................  No change.
 aerosols A-E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Streaming
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C6F14............................           9,300               0  No................  Unacceptable.
CO2..............................               1               0  No................  No change.
C7 fluoroketone, FK-5-1-12mmy2...              <1               0  No................  No change.
HCFC Blend B, HCFC-123, HCFC-124.        77-1,546   0.00098-0.048  No................  No change.
HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa.............     3,220-9,810               0  No................  No change.
H Galden HFPEs...................     2,790-6,230               0  No................  No change.
Water............................               0               0  No................  No change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 24, C3F8 has a GWP of
8,830. EPA found the substitute acceptable only in those limited
instances where no other alternative is technically feasible due to
performance or safety requirements (60 FR 31092; July 13, 1995).
C4F10 has a GWP of 8,860. Because of similar
concerns including the GWPs, EPA listed these as substitutes that would
be used as a last resort. Other commonly-used alternatives for total
flooding applications have lower GWPs including HFC-227ea (with GWP of
3,220), HFC-125 (with a GWP of 3,500), and C6 Fluoroketone
(with a GWP of approximately one).
(b) Flammability
    C3F8 and C4F10 are non-
flammable, like all other fire suppression agents listed as acceptable
under SNAP.
(c) Toxicity
    In evaluating the toxicity concerns with fire suppression agents,
we evaluate consumer and worker exposures to discharges of substitutes
during fire emergencies and accidental discharges. In these acute,
episodic exposures to the substitutes, cardiac sensitization is of
particular interest. The term cardiac sensitization refers to an
increased susceptibility of the heart to adrenaline (or other
catecholamines) which may result in potentially fatal heart
arrhythmias. Human heart arrhythmias and sudden deaths resulting from
overexposure to CFCs, halons, and other halogenated hydrocarbons have
been documented in workplace settings.
    The determination of the toxicity risk to either workers or the
general population from an accidental discharge of either a flooding or
streaming agent substitute is also dependent on a number of other
related factors. For total flood systems, the magnitude of exposure
will depend on the design concentration of the flooding agent (as
determined by the substitute's extinguishing concentration plus a
safety factor, as specified by NFPA guidelines) and the length of time
it takes a person to evacuate the area in which the agent is released.
Because total flood systems are designed to achieve a uniform
concentration of agent within a space, the magnitude of exposure is
independent of the size of space, size of fire, or proximity of person
to the fire. In assessing exposure the design concentration of a total
flood substitute is compared to its cardiotoxic NOAEL and LOAEL levels.
Generally, for occupied areas, if the design concentration is higher
than the agent's NOAEL level, conditions are placed on the use of the
agent to ensure human safety (e.g., lower time allowed for safe
egress).
    Compared to other substitutes in the same total flooding end-use,
these PFCs have lower toxicity profiles. The cardiotoxic NOAEL for
C4F10 is 40 percent which is well above its
demonstrated extinguishing concentration of 5.5 percent in total flood
applications, indicating its safe use in occupied areas. The
cardiotoxic NOAEL for C3F8 is 30 percent which is
also well above its demonstrated extinguishing concentration of 7.3
percent with cup burner tests in heptane (with a resulting design
concentration of 8.8 percent), also indicating its safe use in occupied
areas. In comparison, HFC-227ea has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of nine percent
and an extinguishing concentration of 5.2 percent (minimum
extinguishing concentration for Class A fires) and C6-perfluoroketone
has a cardiotoxic NOAEL of ten percent and an extinguishing
concentration of 3.5 percent (minimum extinguishing concentration for
Class A fires). For HFC-227ea and C6-perfluoroketone, the
concentrations needed to extinguish typical Class A fires are below the
NOAEL. In addition, NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Extinguishing
Systems contains the times for safe human exposure at specific
concentrations for both HFC-227ea and C6-pefluoroketone in order to
allow safe egress of personnel from the protected space in the event of
a system discharge. Current industry practices include additional
safeguards for these systems such as pre-discharge alarms and time-
delays. While C4F10 and
C3F8 have lower toxicity profiles, the greater
toxicity risks of the other alternatives for the same end-uses are
mitigated by requirements as established in NFPA 2001, which requires
that the alternative have first been reviewed in a process equivalent
to that used by SNAP and then provides the minimum requirements for the
safe design, installation, maintenance, and operation of total flooding
systems using clean agent alternatives such as HFC-227ea and C6-
perfluoroketone.
    In comparing the environmental and health risks of
C3F8 and C4F10 with other
alternatives in the same total flooding end-use,
C3F8 and C4F10 both have
higher GWPs. While C3F8 and
C4F10 have lower toxicity profiles, the greater
toxicity of other alternatives in the same end-use are mitigated by the
fact that requirements for safe use of these alternatives are contained
in fire protection industry standards (e.g., NFPA 2001). Other criteria
are comparable to many agents already listed as acceptable under SNAP
for this end-use. Because the GWPs for C3F8 and
C4F10 are significantly higher and thus pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives in the same end-use,
we are proposing to list C3F8 and
C4F10 as unacceptable for total flooding
applications.
(d) Summary
    EPA has listed as acceptable several substitutes that pose lower
overall risk to human health and the environment than the two fire
suppression alternatives, C3F8 and
C4F10, whose status we are proposing to change to

unacceptable. The risks other than GWP are not significantly different
for the other available alternatives in the same total flooding end-use
than for the fire suppression agents we are proposing to list as
unacceptable. Neither the substitutes we are proposing to list as
unacceptable nor the other available alternatives pose a significantly
greater risk based on toxicity because all may be used consistent with
NFPA 2001. However, the GWPs for the fire suppression agents,
C3F8 and C4F10, which we
are proposing to list as unacceptable, are significantly higher and
thus pose significantly greater risk. Because the GWPs for
C3F8 and C4F10 are
significantly higher than other available alternatives in this end-use
and there is no significant difference in risk based on the other
evaluation criteria, we are proposing to list
C3F8 and C4F10 as
unacceptable for total flooding applications.
d. When would the status change?
    Today, the demand in the fire suppression total flooding end-use is
being met through the availability of clean agents and not-in-kind
(NIK) substitutes (i.e., non-gaseous agents, including powdered
aerosols, foam, and water mist).\230\ The current market for the total
flooding end-use consists of commercially available and proven
alternatives including HCFCs, HFCs, inert gases, and a variety of NIK
extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered aerosols, foams water) and
technologies. National and international standards currently cover the
requirements, specifications, and recommendations for design,
installation, testing, maintenance, and safety factors for many of
these alternatives in the total flooding end-use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the above, and the current suite of other available
substitutes in the fire suppression total flooding end uses EPA is
proposing to change the listings from acceptable to unacceptable for
C3F8 and C4F10 in total
flooding systems as of one year after publication of a final rule.
Based on the information available to EPA today on the total flooding
agent markets as discussed above, including through various discussions
with industry representatives, users have other available alternatives
with lower overall risks to human health and the environment. Given the
broad commercial availability of the alternative systems already and
coverage by national and international standards of many of the
alternatives, one year provides a reasonable timeframe for the change
in status for C3F8 and
C4F10 in total flooding systems.
e. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other
federal rules?
    EPA is not aware of other federal rules applying to these two fire
suppression agents in the total flooding end-use.
f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment?
    EPA requests comments on all aspects of these proposed changes. EPA
specifically requests comment on the proposed decision to change the
status of C3F8 and C4F10 to
unacceptable one year after the date of publication of a final rule,
and requests updated information with regard to the use of these PFCs
in total flooding applications as well as the availability of other
substitutes for this end-use. EPA is also interested in advance
comments on whether to take similar action with respect to certain
additional fire suppression agents. Specifically, EPA requests advance
comments and updated information on total flooding uses of
SF6,HFC-23, and HFC-125, and on both total flooding and
streaming uses of HFC-227ea. SF6 is listed as acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits for use as a discharge test agent in
military uses and civilian aircraft uses only (60 FR 31092; July 13,
1995). SF6 is a nonflammable, nontoxic gas which is
colorless and odorless. SF6 is relatively inert, and has an
atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years, with a GWP of 22,800.
SF6 is the most potent GHG the IPCC has evaluated. The U.S.
Navy has used SF6 as a test gas simulant in place of halon
in new halon total flooding systems on ships which have been under
construction prior to identification and qualification of substitute
agents. Halon systems are no longer included in designs for new ships.
Similarly, the airline industry had an interest in using SF6
as a discharge test agent simulating halon 1301 in aircraft system
certification testing to ensure aircraft in-flight fire safety. The
amount of SF6 released in developing and certifying these
critical systems for commercial aircraft was estimated to be
approximately 1,000 pounds per year or less for this development
period, however airlines continue to build new aircraft with halon
systems. EPA is not aware of SF6 use in other commercial
sector testing regimes, and EPA imposed a narrowed use limit on
SF6 as a discharge test agent to ensure that emissions of
this agent remain minimal. The NFPA 12a and NFPA 2001 standards
recommend that halon or other total flooding gases not be used in
discharge testing, but that alternative methods of ensuring enclosure
and piping integrity and system functioning be used. Alternative
methods can often be used, such as the ``door fan'' test for enclosure
integrity, UL 1058 testing to ensure system functioning, pneumatic test
of installed piping, and a ``puff'' test to ensure against internal
blockages in the piping network. These stringent design and testing
requirements have largely obviated the need to perform a discharge test
for total flood systems containing either halon 1301 or a substitute
agent outside of military and civil aircraft uses.
    EPA requests comment and updated information on whether there is
current or continuing use of SF6 in this end-use and the
availability of substitutes or alternative technologies or processes
that would obviate its continued use.
    HFC-23 is listed as acceptable as a total flooding substitute. In
the SNAP final rule of March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), EPA decided not to
adopt the proposed narrowed use limits on HFC-23 in response to
comments that its cardiotoxicity profile was favorable compared to its
design or inerting concentration and in some cases it was the only
acceptable alternative in particular applications such as: (1) Where
temperatures are likely to go below zero degrees, (2) where pre-
inerting is required for occupied areas, and (3) where occupied areas
can suffer considerable variation in fire volume. HFC-23 is used as a
total flooding agent in occupied areas because of its favorable
cardiotoxicity profile with values of 30 percent for the NOAEL and 50
percent for the LOAEL, compared to a design concentration of 14.4
percent, based on cup burner tests in heptane. Compared to an inerting
concentration in methane of 20.5 percent and an inerting design
concentration of 22.6 percent in methane, the agent made for an
excellent candidate for use in explosion inertion. Nevertheless, it is
also a potent greenhouse gas with a GWP of 14,800.
    In its 2014 Assessment, the UNEP TEAP HTOC reported on the status
of the use of halons and alternatives in the various sector of use
including in pipelines and the oil and gas industry.\231\ Halon 1301 is
used for

maintaining legacy systems used to prevent explosions and to suppress
fires in inhospitable locations such as the Alaskan North Slope in the
United States. This situation remains the same today since ``existing
facilities were designed and constructed with halon 1301 fixed systems
as an integral part of the safety system design as well as the physical
layout of the facility.'' New facilities adopt inherently safe design
approaches that eliminate the p otential flammable or explosive
hazards. New technologies such as advanced detection systems also
reduce reliance on need to close and inert the space. However, where an
inerting agent is still required in occupied spaces, halon 1301 has
been replaced by HFC-23 or C6-perfluoroketone, if temperatures permit.
Currently, HFC-23 is the only alternative determined to meet both the
requirement to mitigate inerting high-GWP gas release, such as methane,
and perform its function in fully enclosed spaces in very cold climatic
conditions. EPA requests comment and updated information on the
continuing use of HFC-23 in this and potentially other applications in
this end-use and the availability of substitutes or alternative
technologies or processes that would obviate its continued use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Halons Technical
Options Committee (Vol. 1). This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/en/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/HTOC%202014%20Assessment%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With significant progress made by the U.S. total flooding systems
industry in adopting a variety of suppression agent alternatives, EPA
understands that, as a result, a mix of agents are in use today with
high-GWP HFCs occupying a substantial portion of the products on the
market. Currently, HFCs account for approximately 23 percent of the
alternatives used to replace halon 1301, while HFC-227ea constitutes a
majority of that total, with some use of other HFCs such as HFC-23 and
HFC-125.\232\ EPA, therefore, also requests comment and updated
information on the continuing use of HFC-125 and HFC-227ea in fire
protection and explosion protection. HFC-227ea is an acceptable
alternative for both total flooding (59 FR 12044; March 18, 1994) and
streaming (64 FR 22987; April 28, 1999) applications; HFC-125 is an
acceptable alternative for total flooding uses (59 FR 12044; March 18,
1994). The extinguishing concentration for HFC-227ea for typical Class
A fires in heptane is below its NOAEL making it appropriate it for use
as a total flooding agent in normally occupied spaces, while the
extinguishing concentration for HFC-125 is above its cardiotoxic NOAEL
making it appropriate for use in spaces that are not normally occupied.
EPA is requesting comment and updated information on the continuing use
of these alternatives and the availability of substitutes or
alternative technologies or processes that would obviate their
continued use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Suppression,
Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Household Refrigeration
Industries in the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. October 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Removal of Powdered Aerosol D in Total Flooding From the
List of Substitutes Acceptable for Use Subject to Use Conditions
    Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic particulate aerosol and
explosion suppressant that also is marketed under the trade names of
Aero-K[supreg] and Stat-X[supreg]. This fire suppressant is supplied to
users as a solid housed in a double-walled hermetically-sealed steel
container. When the unit is triggered by heat (300 [deg]C), the product
is pyrotechnically activated to produce gases and aerosol particles
from a mixture of chemicals. EPA listed Powdered Aerosol D as
acceptable subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR
56359; September 7, 2006). The use conditions required that Powdered
Aerosol D be used only in areas that are not normally occupied, because
the Agency did not have sufficient information at that time supporting
its safe use in areas that are normally occupied. Based on a review of
additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of
Powdered Aerosol D in normally occupied spaces, EPA subsequently
determined that Powdered Aerosol D is also acceptable for use in total
flooding systems for normally occupied spaces (79 FR 62863; October 21,
2014). The listing provides that Powdered Aerosol D is acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces. In the October 2014 listing action, EPA noted that in a
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency would remove the previous listing of
acceptable subject to use conditions. Today, EPA is proposing to remove
this listing for Powdered Aerosol D.

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 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. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. These are available in
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663 under the titles, ``Climate Benefits of the
Proposed SNAP Program Status Change Rule'' and ``Preliminary Cost
Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP
Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and
Fire Suppression.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0226. This proposed rule contains no new
requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule
on small entities, EPA evaluated small businesses as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
The Agency has determined that about 90 small businesses could be
subject to the rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent of the small
businesses subject to this proposed rulemaking would be expected to
experience compliance costs of less than one percent of annual sales
revenue. Details of this analysis are presented in the document
entitled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes
to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning, Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, and Fire
Suppression.'' EPA evaluated the potential costs to small businesses
associated with the proposed rule. EPA estimates that the total
annualized compliance costs for all small businesses would be
approximately $11.8 to $14.4 million at a seven percent discount rate,
or $11.5 to $14.0 million at a three percent discount rate.\233\

Today's action allows equipment manufacturers the additional options of
using propane, HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP in the specified end-uses but does
not mandate such use. Because these substitutes are not yet being used
in the United States for the end-uses (with the exception of limited
test-marketing), no change in business practice would be required to
meet the use conditions, resulting in no adverse impact compared to the
absence of this rule. Provisions that allow venting of hydrocarbon
refrigerants in the uses of propane addressed by this proposed rule
would reduce regulatory burden. We have therefore concluded that this
action would relieve regulatory burden for all small entities that
choose to use propane as a refrigerant in the end-uses in this proposed
listing. The use conditions of this proposed rule apply to
manufacturers of commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low
temperature refrigeration equipment that choose to use propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ ICF, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory
Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.
February, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements of this proposed rule with respect to HFCs, if
finalized as proposed, would impact small businesses that manufacture
food processing and dispensing equipment, household refrigerators and
freezers, cold storage refrigeration systems, and polyurethane foams;
operators of cold storage refrigeration systems, including refrigerated
warehouses, wholesalers, and food manufacturers; and manufacture and
use cold storage warehouses, and small businesses that import products
containing closed cell phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, PU, and
polystyrene foams manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam blowing agents.
The proposal to prohibit use of methylene chloride as a foam blowing
agent is not anticipated to impact small businesses because this
substance is not expected to be used currently as a blowing agent. This
rule's provisions do not create enforceable requirements for
refrigeration and AC technicians, but they would indirectly affect
technicians servicing motor vehicle AC systems, certain types of retail
food refrigeration equipment, cold storage warehouses, and commercial
AC equipment 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 proposed rule are already occurring due to 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 AC 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 perfluorocarbons for fire suppression, use of methylene chloride
as a foam blowing agent in various types of foam). A significant
portion of the businesses regulated under this proposed rule are not
small businesses (e.g., commercial AC manufacturers). We have therefore
concluded that this action will not have a significant impact on a
significant number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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. EPA is
aware that the California Air Resources Board is considering regulation
of a number of the substitutes and end-uses in this proposed rule. EPA
specifically solicits comment on whether any state agencies have
existing environmental requirements affecting the substitutes and the
end-uses in this proposed rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. 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 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA 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 the
comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as risk
screens for the substitutes that are proposed to be listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, or are newly listed as
unacceptable.234 235 236 237 238 The risk screens are in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \235\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290)
and Ethane (R-170).
    \236\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \237\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
    \238\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. For the end-uses that are related to
energy effects such as refrigeration and AC, 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 unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded that this proposed rule
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use
standards from UL in the use conditions for propane. These use
conditions would ensure that these new substitutes for very low
temperature refrigeration equipment, commercial ice machines, and water
coolers, do not present significantly greater risk to human health or
the environment than other alternatives.
    EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference portions of current
editions of the UL Standard 399, ``Standard for Drinking-Water
Coolers''; UL Standard 471, ``Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and
Freezers''; and UL Standard 563, ``Standard for Ice Makers'', which
includes requirements for the safe use of refrigerants . Specifically,
these standards are:
    1. Supplement SB to UL Standard 399: Requirements for Drinking
Water Coolers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating
System (7th Edition, August 22, 2008). This document establishes
requirements for self-contained drinking water coolers, including those
supplying cold and/or hot water and those employing flammable
refrigerants. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399, and may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151
Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial
+1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or
www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 399 is $798 for an electronic copy
and $998 for hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the
Standards Certification Customer Library (SCCL) that allows unlimited
access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining
this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling,
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
    2. Supplement SB to UL Standard 471: Requirements for Refrigerators
and Freezers Employing A Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating
System (10th Edition, November 24, 2010). This document establishes
requirements for commercial refrigerators and freezers that employ a
refrigerant that has been identified as having flammable
characteristics. The standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471&edition=10&doctype=ulstd, and may
be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL
60106; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the
U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-352-2168); Internet
address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of
UL 471 is $716 for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also
offers a subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access
to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this
standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling,
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
    3. Supplement SA to UL Standard 563: Requirements for Ice Makers
Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigeration System (8th
Edition, July 31, 2009). This document establishes requirements for
automatic ice makers, including unitary and remote ice makers. The
standard is available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563&edition=8&doctype=ulstd, and may be purchased by mail at: COMM
2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other
countries dial +1-415-352-2168); Internet address: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. The cost of UL 563 is $716
for an electronic copy and $897 for hardcopy. UL also offers a
subscription service to the SCCL that allows unlimited access to their
standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is
not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers and
purchase is not required for those selling, installing and servicing
the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standard being
incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the list
of refrigerants that ASHRAE designates as flammability Class 3
according to ASHRAE Standard 34-2013, Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants, in the unacceptability listing for
certain highly flammable refrigerants for use in existing residential
and light commercial split AC systems. This standard is available at
https://www.ashrae.org/resources-publications/bookstore/standards-15-34, and may be purchased by mail at: 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor,
MI 48108; by telephone: 1-800-527-4723 in the U.S. or Canada; Internet
address: http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=. The cost of ASHRAE Standard
34-2013 is $107 for an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of obtaining
this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling,
installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the ASHRAE standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.

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

    The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action
will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the comparisons of toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as
risk screens for the substitutes that are proposed to be listed as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, or are newly listed as
unacceptable.239 240 241 242 243 The risk screens are in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Water Coolers Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \240\ ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290)
and Ethane (R-170).
    \241\ ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program:
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290).
    \242\ ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps.
Substitute: R-443A.
    \243\ ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes
in Chillers and Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R-
1270).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. References

A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to Incompleteness Letter from
A.S. Trust & Holdings to EPA--Sent March 7, 2014.
AHRI, 2014. Guideline N-2014 for Assignment of Refrigerant Container
Colors. This document is accessible

online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_2014.pdf.
AHRI, 2015. AHRI Will Reinforce Refrigerant R&D Commitment at White
House Event. October 15, 2015. This document is accessible at:
http://www.ahrinet.org/site/320/News-Events/News-and-Shipping-Releases?A=1112.
AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning
and Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 2013. This
document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf.
Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene.
Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of
Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety Standard for
Refrigeration Systems.
ASHRAE, 2013. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook--Refrigeration. The American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978-1-936504-71-8; ISSN 1930-7195.
Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water Coolers.
October, 2015.
Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change
Rule Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, comment submitted by
Clayton Corporation. October 20, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0198-0133.
Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton Corporation Meeting with EPA
Stratospheric Protection Division, December 8, 2015.
Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd chiller, June 30, 2014.
This document is accessible at www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd-chiller/.
Cooling Post, 2015. ``Chemours to build HFO-1336mzz plant,''
November 17, 2015. This document is accessible online at: http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/chemours-to-build-hfo-1336mzz-plant/.
DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. Energy Efficiency
Standards for Federal Buildings. Available at: https://www.energycodes.gov/regulations/federal-building-standards. Last
updated February 13, 2014.
Doniger and Yurek, 2016. Doniger, David (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek
(AHRI), February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter Regarding Chiller Actions
Under SNAP.
DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of
Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. Submitted by Michael Parr and Mack
McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0198-0077.
Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in Domestic Refrigeration.
Accessible at: http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/greenfreeze.htm.
EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain high-GWP
chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015.
EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is accessible at:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07-0601. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036.
EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to Enviro-Safe Refrigerants,
Inc. June, 2013. This document is accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/mailfov_envirosafe_06112013.pdf.
EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2. EPA-420-D-15-900. June
2015. Available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420d15900.pdf.
EPA, 2016a. Draft Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change
Rule. February 2016.
EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016.
Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-290 in Very
Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2<IP_ADDRESS>5.01.ENG.
FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Performance
Standard for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This document is accessible
at: http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf.
Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP Program Status Change Rule
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198, submitted by Dr. Thomas
Fishback, Vice President, Research and Development, Fomo Products,
Inc. October 16, 2014. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0139.
Fomo, 2015. ``The Use of Solstice[supreg] Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) in
Low-Pressure Spray Polyurethane Foam Applications,'' Cline, Mojee
and Bogdan, Mary, October, 2015. Polyurethane Industry Conference
2015.
FTOC, 2011. 2010 Report of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical
Options Committee. This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf.
Gradient, 2013. Additional Risk Assessment of Alternative
Refrigerant R-1234yf. Prepared by Gradient for SAE International
Cooperative Research Program 1234-4. July 24, 2013. The Executive
Summary of this document is accessible at: http://www.sae.org/standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/executivesummary.pdf.
Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed Rule: Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain
Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
(Docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014- 0198). October 20, 2014. Docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198-0170.
Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M.P. Chipperfield, S.A.
Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short-lived
halogens at influencing climate through depletion of stratospheric
ozone. Nature Geoscience, February 16, 2015. This document is
accessible online at http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363.
ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Transportation:
Regulatory Considerations for Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van
Efficiency Technology in the United States. Available online at:
http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups-vans-efficiency-technology.
ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant Charge Size to Passenger
Compartment Volume Ratio Analysis. Confidential Memorandum Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008.
ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts
of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic
Communities and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC-12 in Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. This document is
accessible at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0664-0038.
ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Emissions Assumptions.
ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the Vintaging Model that Impacted
HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimates.
ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-
1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities,
Soil and Plants, and Local Air Quality.
ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected maximum
TFA rainwater concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations.
ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon
Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.