[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86778-86895]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25167]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 231

December 1, 2016

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 82

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9952-18-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS80

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action lists certain
substances as acceptable, subject to use conditions; lists several
substances as unacceptable; and changes the listing status for certain
substances from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits, or to unacceptable. This action also exempts propane in certain
refrigeration end-uses from the Clean Air Act section 608 prohibition
on venting, release, or disposal. In addition, this action applies
unacceptability determinations for foam-blowing agents to closed cell
foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are
manufactured or imported using these foam blowing agents.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 2017. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. How does the SNAP program work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
    D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program?
    E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the
SNAP program?
    F. How are SNAP determinations updated?
    G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance
to or remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?
    H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP
program?
III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this action?
IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?
    A. Climate Action Plan
    B. Summary of Petitions
V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section
608?
    A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting,
release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes
under CAA section 608?
    B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, release, or
disposal of refrigerant substitutes?
VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
    A. Refrigeration and Stationary Air Conditioning
    1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Commercial Ice Machines,
Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
    2. Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA
Section 608 for the End-Uses in the New SNAP Listing
    3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants for
Retrofits in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps
    4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and R-443A in New
Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage
Warehouses, and Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers
    5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Centrifugal Chillers and for New Positive Displacement Chillers
    6. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Cold Storage Warehouses
    7. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Retail Food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food Processing and
Dispensing Equipment)
    8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New
Household Refrigerators and Freezers
    B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
    1. Background
    2. What is EPA's final decision?
    3. How is EPA responding to comments?
    C. Foam Blowing Agents
    1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents
for Rigid PU Spray Foam
    2. Revision to Change of Status Date for Narrowed Use Limits for
Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications
    3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene Chloride in Foams
    4. Closed Cell Foam Products
    D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
    1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total Flooding and Streaming
    2. Change of Listing Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons for
Total Flooding
    3. Removal of Use Conditions for Powdered Aerosol D
VII. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
    A. General Comments
    1. Proposed Status Listing Changes
    2. Proposed Status Change Dates
    B. Authority
    1. General Authority
    2. GWP Considerations
    3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding Principles
    4. Petitions
    5. Application of Criteria for Review of Alternatives
    C. Cost and Economic Impacts
    1. Costs of Rule
    2. EPA's Cost Analysis and Small Business Impacts Screening
Analysis
    D. Environmental Impacts of Status Changes
    1. General Comments
    2. EPA's Climate Benefits Analysis
    3. Energy Efficiency
    E. Interactions With Other Rules
    F. Other Suggestions or Requests
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

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

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

    Over the past twenty years, the SNAP program has played an
important role in assisting with a continuous smooth transition to
safer alternatives. Since the first SNAP framework rule published in
1994, which provided confidence and certainty by identifying safer
alternatives in key consumer and industrial uses, the SNAP program has
ensured that businesses and consumers have access to information about
suitable alternatives. The SNAP program works with many stakeholders,
domestically and abroad, to continuously evaluate and provide updates
on safer alternatives and new technologies. Thanks to these efforts and
the work of individuals, businesses, and organizations, the transitions
generally have been successful.
    When reviewing a substitute, EPA compares the risk posed by that
substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives and determines
whether that specific substitute under review poses significantly more
risk than other available or potentially available alternatives for the
same use. EPA recently has begun to review the lists in a broader
manner to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the
program pose significantly more risk than substitutes that have more
recently been added. As with initial listing decisions, EPA bases
decisions to change the status of an already listed alternative on the
same comparative risk framework.
    In this action, EPA is listing a number of substances as
acceptable, subject to use conditions; listing several substances as
unacceptable; and changing the listing status for certain substances
from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits or to
unacceptable. We performed a comparative risk analysis, based on our
criteria for review, with other alternatives for the relevant end-uses.
For the substances addressed in this action, EPA found significant
potential differences in risk as compared to other available or
potentially available substitutes with respect to one or more specific
criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, or local air quality. In some
cases, those risks could be addressed through use conditions and EPA is
listing several substitutes as acceptable, subject to use conditions.
In other cases, the risks could not be adequately mitigated through use
conditions and, in those cases, EPA is listing several new substitutes
and changing the status of several existing substitutes to
unacceptable. In a few instances, EPA established narrowed use limits
for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications in the
refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), and foam blowing sectors, on
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for
those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable
alternatives were expected to become available over time. EPA is also
applying unacceptability determinations for foam blowing agents to
closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See
section VI.C.4 for the details of this action. Additionally, EPA is
exempting propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice
machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature
refrigeration equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section
608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.c for the details of this action.
    Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does
not specify that any alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across
all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the
intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-
use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses.
In the case of refrigeration and AC, we consider new equipment to be a
separate end-use from retrofitting existing equipment with a different
refrigerant from that for which the equipment was originally designed.
EPA is not setting a ``risk threshold'' for any specific SNAP
criterion, such that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a
specified level of risk. Because the substitutes available and the
types of risk they may pose vary by sector and end-use, our review
focuses on the specific end-use and the alternatives for that end-use,
including the other risks alternatives might pose. Thus, there is no
bright line that can be established to apply to all sectors and end-
uses. Also, EPA recognizes that there are a range of substitutes with
various uses that include both fluorinated (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated (e.g.,
hydrocarbons (HCs) and carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes
that may pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment.
Consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically interpreted it
under the SNAP program, this rule includes both initial listings and
certain modifications to the current lists based on our evaluation of
the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP criteria for
evaluation and considering the current suite of other alternatives for
the specific end-use at issue.
    The following is a summary of the actions taken in this rule.
1. Acceptable Alternatives, With Use Conditions, by End-Use (Initial
Listings)
    (1) For refrigeration, EPA is listing as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, as of January 3, 2017:
     Propane in new commercial ice machines, new water coolers,
and new

very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
    (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems, EPA is
listing, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3,
2017:
     HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured medium-duty passenger
vehicles (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks, and complete HD vans.
    (3) For fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, EPA is
listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of January 3,
2017:
     2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (2-BTP) as a total
flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary power units
(APUs) on aircraft; and
     2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld
extinguishers in aircraft.
2. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Initial Listings)
    (1) For retrofit residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps--unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
     All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard
34-2013; and
     All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability
Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not
limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue
Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22,
Ecofreeez EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-
Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a.
    (2) For new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps,
cold storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, and positive
displacement chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 3,
2017:
     Propylene and R-443A.
3. Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Change of Listing Status)
    (1) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable,
except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, as of January
1, 2024:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa,
R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D,
R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and
THR-03.
    (2) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit,
as of January 1, 2024:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a
(28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C,
R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03.
    (3) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA is listing as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (4) For new positive displacement chillers, EPA is listing as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024:
     HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-
404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment
    (5) For new cold storage warehouses, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2023:
     HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-
404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A,
R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A,
and RS-44 (2003 composition).
    (6) For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing
and dispensing equipment), EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of
January 1, 2021:
     HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A,
R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).
    (7) For new household refrigerators and freezers, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021:
     FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/
1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A,
R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A,
R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003
formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.
    (8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high-pressure two-component spray
foam, EPA is listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or
space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; and as
unacceptable for military or space-and aeronautics-related applications
as of January 1, 2025:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) For rigid PU low-pressure two-component spray foam, EPA is
listing as unacceptable for all uses, except military or space-and
aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; as acceptable,
subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space-and aeronautics-
related applications, as of January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for
military or space-and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1,
2025:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2021, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (10) For rigid PU one-component foam sealants, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020:
     HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-
365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of
HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-
365mfc; and Formacel TI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Closed cell foam products and products containing closed
cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used
after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) For all foam blowing end-uses except for rigid PU spray foam,
EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2025:
     HFCs and HFC blends previously listed as unacceptable as
of January 1, 2022, for space-and aeronautics-related applications.
    (12) For flexible PU foam applications, EPA is listing as
unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017:
     Methylene chloride.
    While EPA proposed and requested comments on listing certain
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as unacceptable in fire suppression total
flooding uses, EPA is not finalizing that change in this rulemaking.
4. Other Changes
    (1) For all foam blowing end-uses, EPA is prohibiting the use of
closed cell

foam products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured
with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the later of (A)
December 1, 2017 or (B) the date of the unacceptability listing.
    (2) For fire suppression total flooding uses, EPA is clarifying the
listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X[supreg]), which was previously
listed as both ``acceptable'' and ``acceptable, subject to use
conditions,'' by removing the listing as ``acceptable, subject to use
conditions,'' as of January 3, 2017.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Potential entities that may be affected by this rule include:

  Table 1--Potentially Regulated Entities by North American Industrial
                   Classification System (NAICS) Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Description of regulated
       Category           NAICS code                entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction..........          238210  Alarm System (e.g., Fire,
                                         Burglar), Electric,
                                         Installation Only.
Industry..............          238220  Plumbing, Heating, And Air
                                         Conditioning Contractors.
Industry..............          325199  All Other Basic Organic Chemical
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325412  Pharmaceutical Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325520  Adhesive Manufacturing.
Industry..............          325998  All Other Miscellaneous Chemical
                                         Product and Preparation
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          326150  Urethane and Other Foam Product
                                         (Except Polystyrene)
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          332919  Nozzles, Firefighting,
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          333415  Manufacturers of Refrigerators,
                                         Freezers, and Other
                                         Refrigerating or Freezing
                                         Equipment, Electric or Other
                                         (NESOI); Heat Pumps Not
                                         Elsewhere Specified or
                                         Included; and Parts Thereof.
Industry..............          333415  Air Conditioning and Warm Air
                                         Heating Equipment and
                                         Commercial and Industrial
                                         Refrigeration Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          334290  Fire Detection and Alarm Systems
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          335222  Household Refrigerator and Home
                                         Freezer Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336120  Heavy-Duty Truck Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336211  Motor Vehicle Body
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3363  Motor Vehicle Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............            3364  Aerospace Product and Parts
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336411  Aircraft Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          336413  Other Aircraft Parts and
                                         Auxiliary Equipment
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          336992  Military Armored Vehicle, Tank,
                                         and Tank Component
                                         Manufacturing.
Industry..............          339113  Surgical Appliance and Supplies
                                         Manufacturing.
Manufacturing.........          339999  Fire Extinguishers, Portable,
                                         Manufacturing.
Retail................          423620  Household Appliances, Electric
                                         Housewares, and Consumer
                                         Electronics Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          423740  Refrigeration Equipment and
                                         Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
Retail................          423930  Recyclable Material Merchant
                                         Wholesalers.
Retail................          443111  Appliance Stores: Household-
                                         Type.
Retail................           44511  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445110  Supermarkets and Other Grocery
                                         (Except Convenience) Stores.
Retail................          445120  Convenience Stores.
Retail................           44521  Meat Markets.
Retail................           44522  Fish and Seafood Markets.
Retail................           44523  Fruit and Vegetable Markets.
Retail................          445291  Baked Goods Stores.
Retail................          445292  Confectionary and Nut Stores.
Retail................          445299  All Other Specialty Food Stores.
Retail................            4453  Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores.
Retail................          446110  Pharmacies and Drug Stores.
Retail................           44711  Gasoline Stations With
                                         Convenience Stores.
Retail................          452910  Warehouse Clubs and
                                         Supercenters.
Retail................          452990  All Other General Merchandise
                                         Stores.
Services..............           72111  Hotels (Except Casino Hotels)
                                         and Motels.
Services..............           72112  Casino Hotels.
Retail................           72241  Drinking Places (Alcoholic
                                         Beverages).
Retail................          722513  Limited-Service Restaurants.
Retail................          722514  Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and
                                         Buffets.
Retail................          722515  Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage
                                         Bars.
Services..............           81119  Other Automotive Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          811412  Appliance Repair and
                                         Maintenance.
Services..............          922160  Fire Protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

AC--Air Conditioning
AAC--American Automotive Council
ACGIH--American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AEGL--Acute Emergency Guideline Limits

AHIA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
AHRI--Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute
AIRAH--Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and
Heating
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
APU--Auxiliary Power Unit
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
ASRAC--Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BTU--British Thermal Units
CAA--Clean Air Act
CAP--Climate Action Plan
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CH4--Methane
CMAQ--Community Multiscale Air Quality
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq--Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CRP--Cooperative Research Programs
CSA--Canadian Standards Association
CUAC--Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner
CUHP--Commercial Unitary Heat Pump
DoD--United States Department of Defense
DOE--United States Department of Energy
DX--Direct Expansion
EEAP--Environmental Effects Assessment Panel
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EO--Executive Order
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU--European Union
FMEA--Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FCA--Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
FR--Federal Register
FTA--Fault Tree Analysis
g--Gram
GHG--Greenhouse Gas
GtCO2eq--Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
GWP--Global Warming Potential
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HBFC--Hydrobromofluorocarbon
HC--Hydrocarbon
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HD--Heavy-Duty
HD GHG--Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
HF--Hydrogen Fluoride
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
IBC--International Building Code
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
ICC--International Code Council
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IDLH--Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
IEC--International Electrochemical Commission
IGSD--Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development
IIAR--Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPLV--Integrated Part-Load Value
IPR--Industrial Process Refrigeration
kPa--Kilopascal
kW--Kilowatt
LD--Light-Duty
LD GHG--Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
LOAEL--Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
MAC Directive--Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning
MACT--Maximum Achievable Technology
MDPV--Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MIR--Maximum Incremental Reactivity
MMTCO2eq--Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MVAC--Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
MY--Model Year
N2O--Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NFPA--National Fire Protection Association
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIK--Not-In-Kind
NIOSH--National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOAEL--No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRDC--Natural Resource Defense Council
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone-Depleting Substance
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL--Permissible Exposure Limit
PFC--Perfluorocarbon
PMS--Pantone Matching System
ppb--Parts Per Billion
PPE--Personal Protective Equipment
ppm--Parts Per Million
PSM--Process Safety Management
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
PU--Polyurethane
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL--Recommended Exposure Limit
RfC--Reference Concentration
RMP--Risk Management Plan
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
RTOC--Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical
Options Committee
SARPS--Standards and Recommended Practices
SAE ICCC--SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee
SAP--Scientific Assessment Panel
SF6--Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SISNOSE--significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
SRES--Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
STEL--Short-term Exposure Limit
SUV--Sport Utility Vehicles
TEAP--Technical and Economic Assessment Panel
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TLV--Threshold Limit Value
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UNFCCC--United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UL--Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UNEP--United Nations Environmental Programme
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

    CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating
alternatives to ODS. This program is known as the SNAP program. The
major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and chlorobromomethane) or class II
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) substance with any substitute that the
Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or
the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative
that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment
and (2) is currently or potentially available.
2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes
    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The
list of ``acceptable'' substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of ``unacceptable,'' ``acceptable,
subject to use conditions,'' and ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits'' substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82
subpart G.
3. Petition Process
    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to
add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in
accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny
a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the
revised lists within an additional six months.
4. 90-Day Notification
    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a
chemical substitute for a class I substance to

notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new
uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also
provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety
studies on such substitutes.
5. Outreach
    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to
maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist
users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing
alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
6. Clearinghouse
    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public
clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

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

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

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to
replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use
sectors listed previously must provide the Agency with notice and the
required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90
days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new
use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement
typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be
planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,\5\ it
may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or
end users \6\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute
into interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once
EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes
complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP
regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier
than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the
Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ``interstate commerce'' means
the distribution or transportation of any product between one state,
territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another
state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the
sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state,
territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for
which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the
release of a product from the facility in which the product was
manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic
manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at
the site of United States Customs clearance.
    \6\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``end-use'' means processes or
classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors
where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for
substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable, subject to use
conditions; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; and
unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b).\7\ Use conditions and narrowed use
limits are both considered ``use restrictions'' and are explained later
in this action. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use
conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant sector
end-uses and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used.
Substitutes that are acceptable, subject to use restrictions may be
used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are
found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in
the rulemaking adding them to the list of unacceptable substitutes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The SNAP regulations also include ``pending,'' referring to
submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under
this provision.
    \8\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ``use'' means any use of a
substitute for a class I or class II ozone-depleting compound,
including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or
product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses,
such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This
definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both
for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the
United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP
requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in
the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a
substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the
substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the
environment are not significantly greater than other substitutes. EPA
describes such substitutes as ``acceptable, subject to use
conditions.'' Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the
associated use conditions are in violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's
SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use
within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use
of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an
industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute
subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable
substitutes are available for their specific application.\9\ EPA
describes these substitutes as ``acceptable, subject to narrowed use
limits.'' A person using a substitute that is acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not
consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in
violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR
82.174(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA
established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a
limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on
the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available
for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but
acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time,
e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents
in military applications or after development of improved servicing
infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles
destined for export.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute
that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower
risk alternative is available or potentially available \10\ provides
EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular
substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed
circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the
Federal Register. EPA uses notice and comment rulemaking to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or
to

remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In addition to acceptable commercially available
alternatives, the SNAP program may consider potentially available
alternatives. The SNAP program's definition of ``potentially
available'' is ``any alternative for which adequate health, safety,
and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification
process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which
the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if
not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not
yet produced or sold.'' (40 CFR 82.172)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the
preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are
discussed in this section.
1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a Comparative Risk Framework
    The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds
compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the
ozone-depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk
factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential (ODP) as
well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and
contributions to climate change and other environmental factors.
2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be Risk Free To Be Found Acceptable
    Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly
greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk
free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of
substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment
relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may
involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound
may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose
significantly greater risk than other alternatives.
3. Restrict Those Substitutes That Are Significantly Worse
    EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only
marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely
difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's
choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but one substitute
for each end-use, and does not intend to restrict substitutes on the
market unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is
clearly more harmful to human health or the environment than other
alternatives.
4. Evaluate Risks by Use
    Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the
characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use
application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use.
Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly
depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk
characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the
environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses.
This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect
to different types of risk to either the environment or to human
health.
5. Provide the Regulated Community With Information as Soon as Possible
    The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community
with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as
possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of
acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable;
acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits, in the Federal Register. In addition, we maintain
lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site,
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap.
6. Do Not Endorse Products Manufactured by Specific Companies
    The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In
many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on
individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable
list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that
company's products.
7. Defer to Other Environmental Regulations When Warranted
    In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed
extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes
that address potential environmental or human health effects that may
result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances.
For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased
use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The
SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into
account when reviewing substitutes.

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

    EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute
is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at
Sec.  82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and
environmental effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability,
and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess
these criteria, we require submitters to include various information
including ODP, global warming potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability,
and the potential for human exposure.
    When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria
in the following groupings:
    1. Atmospheric effects--The SNAP program evaluates the potential
contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP
program considers the ODP and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds
to assess atmospheric effects.
    2. Exposure assessments--The SNAP program uses exposure assessments
to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers,
consumers, the general population, and the environment may be exposed
over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on
personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure
assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including:

     Releases in the workplace and in homes;
     Releases to ambient air and surface water;
     Releases from the management of solid wastes.
    3. Toxicity data--The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the
possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitutes.
We use broad health-based criteria such as:
     Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational
exposure;
     Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-
carcinogenic effects on the general population;
     Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of
the general population.
    When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a
PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits
(RELs) from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit
values (TLVs) set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to
the general population are not already established, then EPA derives
these values following the Agency's peer review guidelines. Exposure
information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis
for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to
develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk
characterizations.
    4. Flammability--The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety
concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using
data on:
     Flash point and flammability limits (e.g., ASHRAE
flammability/combustibility classifications);
     Data on testing of blends with flammable components;
     Test data on flammability in consumer applications
conducted by independent laboratories; and
     Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques.
    5. Other environmental impacts--The SNAP program also examines
other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and local air
quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water
may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes whenever a potential
substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA
sections 112(b) and 202(l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations.
    EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to
evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to Sec.
82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is distinct from consideration of costs
associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute
is being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(``While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of the
substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited
to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to whether
cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently or
potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus
precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of
whether it might be permitted under CAA Sec.  612(c) . . . .'').
    Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much
broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many
substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure
that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater
risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes, the
SNAP criteria continue to be informed by our current overall
understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our
experience with and current knowledge about alternatives. Over time,
the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and at the same
time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the
potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and
alternative technologies.

F. How are SNAP determinations updated?

    Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP
determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and
either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the
SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision
allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to
the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a
substance from either list. The second means is through the
notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before
introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant
new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-
day notifications are required by CAA section 612(e) for producers of
substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases,
by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to
implement section 612(c).
    Finally, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have
interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or
unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or
remove a substance from the SNAP lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18,
1994). In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the
SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other alternatives that pose
lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining
whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same
consideration, but do so in the light of new data that may not have
been available at the time of our original listing decision, including
information on substitutes that was not included in our comparative
review at the time of our initial listing decision and new information
on substitutes previously reviewed.

G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to add a substance to or
remove a substance from one of the SNAP lists?

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the
initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994
(59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any
substitute substance where it finds that there are other alternatives
that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The
initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the
environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers
in the comparative risk framework it uses to determine whether there
are other alternatives that pose significantly lower risk than the
substitute under review. EPA makes decisions based on the particular
end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found
certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to
use restrictions. In the decades since ODS were first invented in the
1920s, American consumers relied on products using ODS for diverse uses
including aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, solvent cleaning, and
fire protection. The agreement by governments to phase out production
of ODS under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer led to inevitable questions about whether suitable alternatives
could be found in

all cases, and in the larger sense, about how to limit negative impacts
on society from use of alternatives.
    It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was
promulgated. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes
available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited.
Thus, while the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of
overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often
there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative
assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that EPA
listed class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they
too would be phased out and, at best, could offer an interim solution.
Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products
Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under
the SNAP program could not convey permanence.
    Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has
issued 20 rules and 31 notices that generally expand the menu of
options for the various SNAP sectors and end-uses. Thus, comparisons
today apply to a broader range of alternatives--both chemical and non-
chemical--than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry
experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of
the program.
    In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over
the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global
environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of
substitutes in this action includes comparative assessments that
consider our evolving understanding of a variety of factors. For
example, GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our
evaluation framework, but as is the case with all of our review
criteria, the amount of information has expanded and the quality has
improved.
    To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP
program considers new information, including new substitutes, and
improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health.
EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing
determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to
unacceptable. On January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend
known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and
AC end-uses for which EPA had previously listed this blend as an
acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 3, 1997). EPA based this
decision on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals
in the blend.
    Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in
2007, when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in
the foam sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). These HCFCs, which are
ozone-depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were
initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP
than the substances they were replacing and there were no other
alternatives that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA's listing
decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at
a time when the number of substitutes was far more limited. In light of
the expanded availability of other alternatives with lower overall risk
to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and
taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phase down step, EPA changed
the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to
unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs
would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay
the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date
that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their
manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other
substitutes.
    GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall
evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. The President's
June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) \11\ states, ``To reduce emissions
of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international
diplomacy as well as domestic actions.'' Furthermore, the CAP states
that EPA will ``use its authority through the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in
low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly
chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical
alternatives.'' On July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), EPA issued a final
regulation that was our first effort to take a broader look at the SNAP
lists, where we focused on those listed substitutes that have a high
GWP relative to other alternatives in specific end-uses, while
otherwise posing comparable levels of risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan.
This document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2015 rule, various HFCs and HFC-containing blends that
were previously listed as acceptable under the SNAP program were listed
as unacceptable in various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and
refrigeration and AC sectors where there are other alternatives that
pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment for
specific uses. The July 2015 rule also changed the status from
acceptable to unacceptable for certain HCFCs being phased out of
production under the Montreal Protocol and CAA section 605(a). Per the
guiding principles of the SNAP program, the July 2015 rule did not
specify that any HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and
end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection
between the specific substitute and the particular end-use and the
availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses when making
its determinations.

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

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

III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have
bearing on this action?

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

the public health and the public welfare of current and future
generations.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is
accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs.\13\ Although they
represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG
emissions, their warming impact per kilogram is very strong. While GHGs
such as CO2 and CH4 are unintentional byproducts
from energy production, industrial and agricultural activities, and
mobile sources, HFCs are intentionally produced chemicals.\14\ The most
commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1,430, which means
it traps 1,430 times as much heat per kilogram as CO2 does
over 100 years. Because of their role in replacing ODS, both in the
United States and globally, and because of the increasing use of
refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are projected to increase
substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades
if their production is left uncontrolled. In the United States,
emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other
GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15 percent annually.\15\ At
that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by
2030.\16\ HFCs are also rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The
atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a has increased by about ten
percent per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a
and HFC-125, which are components of commonly used refrigerant blends,
have risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007-2011,
respectively.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone
Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to
Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New
York. This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf.
    \14\ HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct
during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals.
    \15\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \16\ Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change:
Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013.
    \17\ Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations,
Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is
accessible at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without action, annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to
rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 gigatons of CO2 equivalent
(GtCO2eq) in 2050,\18\ which is comparable to the drop in
annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988
and 2010.\19\ By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is
projected to increase radiative forcing in the range of 0.22 to 0.25 W
m-2. This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-
quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the
buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES).\20\ To appreciate the significance of the
effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs
would be six to nine percent of the CO2 emissions in 2050
based on the IPCC's highest CO2 emissions scenario and
equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO2 emissions based on the
IPCC's lowest CO2 emissions pathway.21 22
Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific
literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this
rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Velders, G.J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. McFarland,
S.O. Andersen (2009). ``The large contribution of projected HFC
emissions to future climate forcing.'' Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954.
    \19\ UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and
the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This
document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf.
    \20\ Ibid.
    \21\ Velders, Guus JM, et al. ``Future atmospheric abundances
and climate forcings from scenarios of global and regional
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions.'' Atmospheric Environment 123
(2015): 200-209.
    \22\ IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables
[Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque,
H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J.
Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA. This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PFCs are potent GHGs and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs
are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated
with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors, then
captured for intentional use or manufactured for use in various
industrial applications. PFCs have had limited use in the eight sectors
regulated under SNAP. While status changes for certain PFCs in fire
suppression total flooding uses were proposed, no final action on PFCs
in this end-use is being taken in this action.

IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and
petitions received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs?

A. Climate Action Plan

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

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

    The CAP further states, ``To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United
States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well
as domestic actions.'' This action is consistent with that call for
leadership through domestic actions. Regarding international
leadership, for the past seven years, the United States, Canada, and
Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase
down the production and consumption of HFCs. Adopting the North
American proposal would reduce cumulative HFC emissions by more than 90
GtCO2eq through 2050.
    Throughout our discussions with the regulated community, we have
sought to convey our understanding of the role that certainty plays in
enabling the robust development and uptake of alternatives. As noted
above, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its
substance and end-use specific consideration, its multi-criteria basis
for action, and its petition process, counters measures some have
advocated could provide more certainty, such as setting specific
numerical criteria for environmental evaluations (e.g., all compounds
with GWP greater than 150). That said, this action provides additional
certainty in the specific cases addressed. In addition, we remain
committed to continuing to actively seek stakeholder views and to share
our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions,
as part of our commitment to provide greater certainty to producers and
consumers in SNAP-regulated industrial sectors.

B. Summary of Petitions

    EPA received two petitions on October 6, 2015, requesting the
Agency to modify certain acceptability listings of high-GWP substances
in various end-uses. The first was submitted by the Natural Resource
Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable
Development (IGSD) and the second by the Environmental

Investigation Agency (EIA).23 24 The NRDC/IGSD petition
requests that EPA change the listing status of certain high-GWP
chemicals they believe are used most frequently in the United States in
various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire
suppression and explosion protection sectors. The EIA petition requests
that EPA list additional high-GWP HFCs as unacceptable or acceptable,
subject to use restrictions, in a number of end-uses in the
refrigeration and AC, and fire suppression and explosion protection
sectors. In support of their petitions, the petitioners identified
other alternatives they claim are available for use in the specified
end-uses and present lower risks to human health and environment. These
petitions are more fully described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) and are available in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA
has not found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses
sufficient information to finalize action on some of the end-uses
covered by the petitions. This action is responsive to certain aspects
of the petitions that relate to the refrigeration and AC, and foam
blowing sectors; EPA is changing the listing from acceptable to
unacceptable for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs
under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives
Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015.
    \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFC-134a in new centrifugal chillers, new positive
displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and
rigid PU spray foam;
     R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R-507A in new centrifugal
chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household
refrigerators and freezers, and new cold storage warehouses;
     R-407A in new cold storage warehouses;
     R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, and R-434A in new
centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-227ea in new cold storage warehouses, new centrifugal
chillers, and new positive displacement chillers;
     HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-227ea in rigid PU spray
foam;
     HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new centrifugal chillers and
new positive displacement chillers; and
     a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs in certain
new refrigeration and AC equipment.
    Parts of two other SNAP petitions previously submitted by the same
three organizations are also relevant to this rulemaking. In a petition
EIA submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated that ``in light of
the comparative nature of the SNAP program's evaluation of substitutes
and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon
to be available,'' EPA should ``remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends
from the list of acceptable substitutes for any ozone-depleting
substance in any non-essential uses under EPA's SNAP program.''
Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April 27, 2012,
requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable
substitutes in household refrigerators and freezers, and stand-alone
retail food refrigerators and freezers, among other end-uses. On August
7, 2013, EPA found both petitions to be incomplete. While EPA has not
found these petitions complete at this time, EPA possesses sufficient
information to finalize action on some of the end-uses covered by the
petitions. Similar to the October 2015 petitions, this action is
responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the
refrigeration and AC and foam blowing sectors.

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

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

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

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

    Regulations issued under CAA section 608, published on May 14, 1993
(58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting
refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance of
refrigeration and AC appliances. These regulations are codified at 40
CFR part 82, subpart F. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also issued
regulations implementing the section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly
venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances.
These regulations were designed to substantially reduce the use and
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants.
    EPA issued rules on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946) and April 13, 2005
(70 FR 19273) clarifying how the venting prohibition in section 608(c)
applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and
PFCs) during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of
appliances. In part, they provide that no person maintaining,
servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or
otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute
from such appliances, with the exception of the specified substitutes
in the specified end-uses, as provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a).
    As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant
substitutes, EPA had not, at the time of that rulemaking, issued
regulations

requiring certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment
intended for use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13,
2005). However, as EPA has noted, the lack of a current regulatory
provision should not be considered as an exemption from the venting
prohibition for substitutes that are not expressly exempted in Sec.
82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478).
    The Administrator signed final regulations to require certification
of refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment for use with
refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition. For
information on the final 608 rule, see the docket for the rulemaking
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453).
    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA exempted from the venting
prohibition three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-
441A in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination
refrigerators and freezers; and propane in retail food refrigerators
and freezers (stand-alone units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 (80
FR 19453), EPA exempted from the venting prohibition four HC
refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in the following end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A in retail
food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); propane in
household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and
freezers; ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and
equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, propane, and
isobutane in vending machines; and propane and R-441A in self-contained
room air conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat
pumps. Those regulatory exemptions do not apply to blends of HCs with
other refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or
PFC.
    In those 2014 and 2015 actions, EPA determined that for the
purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of
such HC refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose
a threat to the environment, considering both the inherent
characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in
the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other
authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant
substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of
those HC refrigerant substitutes.

VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action?

    EPA is listing certain newly submitted alternatives as acceptable,
subject to use conditions, and other newly submitted alternatives as
unacceptable. EPA is also modifying current listings from acceptable to
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable for
certain alternatives in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC
and foam blowing sectors. In each instance where EPA is listing a newly
submitted substitute as unacceptable or is changing the status of a
substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has determined that
there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human
health and the environment. In a few instances, EPA established
narrowed use limits for certain substitutes for specific military or
space-and aeronautics-related applications in the refrigeration and AC,
and foam blowing sectors, on the basis that other acceptable
alternatives would not be available for those specific applications
within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to
become available over time. This action also applies unacceptability
determinations for foam blowing agents to closed cell foam products and
products containing closed cell foam. Additionally, EPA is exempting
propane as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines,
in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration
equipment from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2).
This action also clarifies the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-
X[supreg]), which was previously listed as both acceptable and
acceptable, subject to use conditions, by removing the listing as
acceptable subject to use conditions. The emissions that will be
avoided from the changes of status in this action are estimated to be
up to approximately 6.6 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2025 and up to approximately 11.3
MMTCO2eq in 2030.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status
Change Rule. March, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change of Listing Status

    In determining whether to modify the previous listing decisions for
substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose
lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among
other things: Comments to the proposed rule of April 18, 2016,
scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that supports the Montreal Protocol,
journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and
supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports
presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from
trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on
which we have relied are in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0663). Key references are highlighted in section VIII of this
action.

Change of Status Dates

    The change of status dates are based upon EPA's understanding of
the availability of alternatives, considering factors such as
commercial availability and supply of alternatives, time required to
work through technical challenges with using alternatives, and time
required to meet other federal regulatory requirements with redesigned
equipment or formulations. As discussed in previous actions, as part of
our consideration of the availability of alternatives, we consider
``all available information, including information provided during the
public comment period, and information claimed as confidential and
provided during meetings, regarding technical challenges that may
affect the time at which the alternatives can be used safely and used
consistent with other requirements such as testing and code compliance
obligations'' (80 FR 42873; July 20, 2015).

Consideration of Costs and Benefits

    Under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7),
consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under
review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition
when a substitute is found unacceptable. EPA requires information on
cost and availability of substitutes as part of SNAP submissions to
judge how widely a substitute might be used and, therefore, what its
potential environmental and health effects might be. The SNAP criteria
do not identify other cost considerations and thus we have not
historically used cost information independent of environmental and
health effects to determine the acceptability of substitutes under
review--that is, we have never determined a substitute under review to
be unacceptable or acceptable on the basis of its cost. When
considering a change of status for substitutes already listed as
acceptable, the SNAP program has not considered the costs of transition
away from HFCs, HFC blends, PFCs, and other alternatives affected by
the changes of status as part of determining the status

of the substitute or the availability of other alternatives for the
same uses.
    We are not addressing in this rulemaking whether to revise the
regulatory criteria to include an expanded role for the consideration
of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applied the existing
regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status
of the substitutes addressed in this action.
    Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the costs of the changes of status
in this action to provide information to the public and to meet various
statutory and executive order requirements. We have estimated costs for
applicable NAICS codes in a document titled, ``Cost Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
\26\ Using a seven percent discount rate, total annualized compliance
costs across the roughly 100 affected businesses are estimated to range
from $59.2 million-$71.3 million. Using a three percent discount rate,
total annualized compliance costs are estimated to range from $58.8
million-$70.6 million.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the
Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and
Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. September, 2016.
    \27\ In terms of the distribution of the estimated total
annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning is
about 97-98 percent, foams is about two to three percent and fire
suppression is about zero percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses
in a document titled, ``Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used
in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.''
\28\ The screening analysis finds that the rulemaking can be presumed
to have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (SISNOSE). Roughly 89 small businesses could be subject to the
rulemaking. Total annualized compliance costs across affected small
businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8-$14.4 million at a
seven percent discount rate, or $11.5-$14.0 million at a three percent
discount rate.\29\ Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect this
action to have major economic impacts (greater than $100 million per
year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives
used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire
Suppression. September, 2016.
    \29\ Of those 89 small businesses, roughly 76 percent would be
expected to incur compliance costs that are estimated to be less
than one percent of annual sales. Roughly 24 percent could incur
costs in excess of one percent of annual sales with approximately 14
percent possibly incurring costs in excess of three percent of
annual sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Refrigeration and Stationary AC

1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New Self-Contained Commercial Ice
Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration
Equipment
a. Background
    This section, and other ``background'' sections that follow in the
rule, provide information on the end-uses relevant to this decision,
available alternatives, and other applicable regulations relevant to
these end-uses.
    Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments, such
as hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores to produce ice. Many
commercial ice machines are self-contained units, while some have the
condenser separated from the portion of the machine making the ice and
have refrigerant lines running between the two. This action applies
only to self-contained commercial ice machines.
    Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for
drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water.
    Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to
maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of
food--generally, -80 [deg]C (-170[emsp14][deg]F) or lower. In some
cases, very low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a
refrigeration system with two refrigerant loops containing different
refrigerants or with a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration loop coupled
with an alternative refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling cycle).
    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has established energy
conservation standards for automatic commercial ice machines which
apply to the self-contained commercial ice machines in this
listing.\30\ DOE does not have an energy conservation standard that
would apply to water coolers or to very low temperature refrigeration
equipment. For further information on the relationship between this
action and other federal rules, see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed
rule (81 FR 22830; April 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards_test_procedures.html. ``Automatic
commercial ice machines'' are defined as ``a factory-made assembly
(not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that--(1) consists of a
condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated
unit, with means for making and harvesting ice; and (2) may include
means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing
ice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is EPA's final decision?
    As proposed, EPA is listing propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial
ice machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature
refrigeration equipment. The use conditions include conditions
requiring conformity with industry standards, limits on charge size,
and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment. The use
conditions are detailed in section VI.A.1.b.ii.
i. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses
with respect to SNAP criteria?
    EPA has listed a number of alternatives as acceptable in the
commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature
refrigeration end-uses. In the proposed rule (81 FR at 22824; April 18,
2016), EPA provided information on the environmental and health
properties of propane and the various substitutes in these end-uses.
Additionally, EPA's risk assessments for propane and a technical
support document \31\ 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 are
available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered
in the Final Rule, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing
Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New
Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Environmental Impacts
    Propane has an ODP of zero.\32\ The most commonly used substitutes
in the commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature
refrigeration end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., R-404A and R-
134a). Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such as R-
401A, R-403B, R-414A and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-
142b,\33\ have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an
ODP lower

than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these end-
uses.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine,
or iodine have an ODP of zero.
    \33\ Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to
service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b
and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to
manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to
charge new appliances assembled onsite.
    \34\ Propane's ODP is also lower than the ODP of the ozone-
depleting substances historically used in these end-uses: CFC-12
(ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1/halon 1301 (ODP = 10) and
R-502 (ODP = 0.334).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate
forcing of various GHGs relative to a value of one for CO2.
Propane has a low GWP of three.\35\ For comparison, some other commonly
used acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses are R-134a and R-404A,
with GWPs of about 1,430 and 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 2,
the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants in commercial ice machines ranges
from zero for ammonia vapor compression, ammonia absorption, and the
not-in-kind (NIK) Stirling cycle technology to approximately 3,990 for
R-507A. For water coolers, acceptable substitutes have GWPs ranging
from 31 for THR-02 to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.\36\ For very low
temperature refrigeration, the GWPs for acceptable substitutes range
from one for CO2 to 14,800 for HFC-23. Propane's GWP is
comparable to or significantly lower than those of other alternatives
in these end-uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are
100-year integrated time horizon values taken from IPCC, 2007.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
    \36\ The GWPs of the ODS historically used in these end-uses
are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/halon
1301; (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).

   Table 2--GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propane Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Commercial Ice Machines,
                     Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Refrigerants                GWP                  ODP                      VOC            Listing status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane......................               3  0........................  Yes..................  Acceptable,
                                                                                subject to use
                                                                                conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Commercial Ice Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-         0-3,990  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-
 407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 421A, R-421B, R-424A, R-
 426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-
 449A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON         30-3,610  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 B, R-125/R-290 /R-134a/ R-
 600a (55.0/1.0/ 42.5/1.5),
 417A, R-422A, R-422B, R-
 422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A,
 R-438A, RS-24 (2002
 formulation), RS-44 (2003
 formulation), THR-02, THR-03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Water Coolers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-          0-3,990  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-
 437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A.
FOR12A, FOR-12B, IKON B, R-          30-3,090  0--Not public \3\........  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 125/R-290 /R-134a /R-600a
 (55.0/1.0 /42.5/1.5), R-
 422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-
 438A, RS-24 (2002
 formulation), SP34E, THR-02.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-         1-14,800  0........................  No...................  Acceptable.
 7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-
 170 (ethane), R-404A, R-
 407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-
 507A, R-508A, R-508B.
ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/    2,530-8,500  0........................  Yes \4\..............  Acceptable.
 R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5),
 R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC,
 PFC-662HC, PFC-552HC, and
 FLC-15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use.
\2\ HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely
  restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption.
\3\ The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is
  claimed as confidential business information.
\4\ One or more constituents of the blend are VOCs.

    In assessing the overall climate impacts associated with use of
these refrigerants, we focus on the ``direct'' emissions, which are
emissions from releases of the refrigerants over the full lifecycle of
refrigerant-containing products.\37\ In contrast, ``indirect''
emissions are associated with electricity consumption. We do not have a
practice in the SNAP program of evaluating indirect impacts in the
overall risk analysis because such considerations are linked not only
to the specific alternative used but also to the design of specific
pieces of equipment and equipment design changes from year-to-year.
Thus, indirect impacts do not provide a reasonable metric for the SNAP
evaluation, which occurs at a fixed point in time and considers other
alternatives reviewed previously. Instead, our overall assessment of
climate impacts considers issues such as technical needs for energy
efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE conservation standards) as part of our
consideration of whether alternatives are ``available.'' We recognize
that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part
affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic
and thermophysical properties of that refrigerant, as well as other
factors. For example, appliances that are optimized for a specific
refrigerant will operate more efficiently. While theoretical efficiency
of any given Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant used,
the refrigerant, the design of the

equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy efficiency
achieved in operation. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency
will be achieved in future products using propane, or any other
specific acceptable refrigerant, both actual equipment and testing
results suggest that equipment optimized for propane may improve energy
efficiency, and is unlikely to reduce it.38 39 40 Further,
testing data, peer-reviewed journal articles and other information
provided by the submitters for propane in these end-uses indicate that
equipment using propane is likely to require a smaller refrigerant
charge, have a higher coefficient of performance, and use less energy
than equipment currently being manufactured that uses other
refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable under SNAP in
these end-uses. Also see section VI.A.1.f of the proposed rule (81 FR
22830) concerning the role of the DOE energy conservation standards in
ensuring that overall energy efficiency of equipment will be maintained
or improved over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This
document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf.
    \38\ Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-
290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015.
    \39\ Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013.
EPA SNAP Submittal--Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice
Machines, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015.
    \40\ Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water
Coolers. October, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA evaluated potential impacts of
propane and other HC refrigerants on local air quality. Propane meets
the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and
is not excluded from that definition for the purpose of developing
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As described below, EPA
estimates that potential emissions of HCs, including propane, when used
as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC
sector, have little impact on local air quality, with the exception of
unsaturated HCs such as propylene.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA analyzed various scenarios to consider the potential impacts on
local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely.\42\ The analysis
considered both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. The worst-case
scenario assumed that the most reactive HC listed as acceptable
(isobutane) was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even though
isobutane has not been listed acceptable for use in all refrigeration
and AC uses, and that all refrigerant used was emitted to the
atmosphere. In that extreme scenario, the model predicted that the
maximum increase in any single 8-hour average ground-level ozone
concentration would be 0.72 parts per billion (ppb) in Los Angeles,
which is the area with the highest level of ground-level ozone
pollution in the United States. Based on this maximum projected
increase, EPA determined that the incremental VOC emissions from
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it.\43\ Given the potential sources
of uncertainty in the modeling, the conservativeness of the
assumptions, and the finding that the incremental VOC emissions from
refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would
meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it,\44\ we believe that the use of
isobutane consistent with the use conditions required in EPA's
regulations will not result in significantly greater risk to the
environment than other alternatives. Because propane is less reactive
at forming ground-level ozone than isobutane, we reach the same
conclusion for propane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Ibid.
    \43\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    \44\ The analysis described here was conducted prior to
finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone
attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a less conservative analysis of potential impacts on ambient
ozone levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses that would be more likely
to use HC refrigerants between now and 2030, including end-uses where
HC refrigerants previously have been listed as acceptable and the three
end-uses addressed in this rule. For example, we assumed use of propane
in water coolers and commercial ice machines and in other end-uses
where EPA has already listed propane as acceptable, including room air
conditioners and household and retail food refrigeration equipment. We
also assumed the use of other HCs in end-uses where they are already
listed as acceptable such as isobutane in household and retail food
refrigeration equipment and R-441A in room air conditioners and
household and retail food refrigeration equipment. For further
information on the specific assumptions, see the docket for this
rulemaking.\45\ Based on this still conservative but more probable
assessment of refrigerant use, we found that there would be a worst-
case impact of a 0.15 ppb increase in ozone for a single 8-hour average
concentration in the Los Angeles area, which is the area with the
highest level of ground-level ozone in the United States.\46\ In the
other cities examined in the analysis, Houston and Atlanta, impacts
were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb for a single 8-hour
average concentration, respectively).\47\ For areas in the analysis
that were not violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the impacts did not cause
an exceedance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We updated this analysis for the
final rule, extending the analysis to 2040 and considering just those
uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants already listed as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, and the use of propane in the end-uses in this rule.
This updated analysis found worst-case impacts for a single 8-hour
average concentration in the Los Angeles area of 0.05 ppb and worst-
case impacts of less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
    \46\ This less conservative analysis included some use of R-443A
in room AC units because that substitute was under evaluation for
that end-use. Elsewhere in this rule, we find R-443A and propylene
unacceptable in residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps,
including room AC units. The propylene in R-443A, representing 12
percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for about 75 percent
of the 0.15 ppb increase in ozone in this scenario, while all uses
of propane, representing 83 percent of refrigerant emitted, was
responsible for about 21 percent of the increase of ozone in this
scenario. Thus, only 0.03 ppb of the 0.15 ppb observed in Los
Angeles would be due to propane and other acceptable HCs.
    \47\ ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of
Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations.
February, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the relatively minimal air quality impacts of propane if
it is released to the atmosphere from commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment even in a
worst-case scenario, we conclude that propane does not have a
significantly greater overall impact on human health and the
environment based on its effects on local air quality than other
refrigerants listed as acceptable in commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment.
    Ecosystem effects from propane, primarily effects on aquatic life,
are expected to be small as are the effects of other acceptable
substitutes. Propane is highly volatile and typically evaporates or
partitions to air, rather than contaminating surface waters, and thus
propane's effects on aquatic life are expected to be small. Propane
will pose no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem effects than those of
other alternatives for these uses.

(b) Flammability
    Propane is classified as an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34-
2013 and subsequent addenda, indicating that it has low toxicity and
high flammability. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013 assigns a safety group
classification for each refrigerant which consists of two alphanumeric
characters (e.g., A2 or B1). The capital letter indicates the toxicity
and the numeral denotes the flammability. ASHRAE classifies Class A
refrigerants as refrigerants for which toxicity has not been identified
at concentrations less than or equal to 400 parts per million (ppm) by
volume, based on data used to determine TLV-time weighted average (TWA)
or consistent indices. Class B signifies refrigerants for which there
is evidence of toxicity at concentrations below 400 ppm by volume,
based on data used to determine TLV-TWA or consistent indices. The
refrigerants are also assigned a flammability classification of 1, 2,
or 3. Tests are conducted in accordance with ASTM E681 using a spark
ignition source at 60 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa.\48\ Figure 1 in ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 15-2013 uses the same safety group but limits its
concentration to 3,400 ppm.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013: Designation
and Safety Classification of Refrigerants.
    \49\ ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15-2013: Safety
Standard for Refrigeration Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The flammability classification ``1'' is given to refrigerants
that, when tested, show no flame propagation. The flammability
classification ``2'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested,
exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000
kJ/kg (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), and have a lower
flammability limit (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\. Refrigerants within
flammability classification 2 may optionally be designated in the LFL
subclass ``2L'' if they have a maximum burning velocity of 10 cm/s or
lower when tested at 23.0 [deg]C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability
classification ``3'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested,
exhibit flame propagation and that either have a heat of combustion of
19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/m\3\ or
lower. Thus, refrigerants with flammability classification ``3'' are
highly flammable while those with flammability classification ``2'' are
less flammable and those with flammability classification ``2L'' are
mildly flammable. For both toxicity and flammability classifications,
refrigerant blends are designated based on the worst-case of
fractionation determined for the blend.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE16.000

    Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are
not flammable. Without appropriate use conditions, the flammability
risk posed by propane would be higher than non-flammable refrigerants
because individuals may not be aware that their actions could
potentially cause a fire.
    Because of its flammability, propane could pose a significant
safety concern for workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in
this proposal if it is not handled correctly. In the presence of an
ignition source (e.g., static electricity spark resulting from closing
a door, use of a torch during service, or a short circuit in wiring
that controls the motor of a compressor), an explosion or a fire could
occur when the concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. Propane's
LFL is 21,000 ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it
is important to minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and
to reduce the likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed
the LFL. Under the final listing decision in this action, propane is
acceptable for use only in new equipment (self-contained commercial ice
machines, water coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration
equipment) specifically designed for this refrigerant.
    To determine whether flammability would be a concern for service
personnel or for consumers, EPA analyzed multiple scenarios, beginning
with a plausible worst-case scenario to model a catastrophic release of
propane. Based upon the results of those analyses, we expect there
would not be an unacceptable risk of fire or explosion provided that
the charge size is limited to 150 g for self-contained ice machines or
very low temperature refrigeration equipment or to 60 g for water
coolers. EPA also reviewed the submitters' detailed assessments of the
probability of events that might create a fire and approaches to avoid
sparking from the refrigeration equipment. Further information on these
analyses and EPA's risk assessments are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663) and in section VI.A.1.b.ii of
the proposed rule (81 FR 22827).
    Service personnel or consumers may not be familiar with
refrigeration or AC

equipment containing a flammable refrigerant. Therefore, use conditions
are necessary to ensure people handling such equipment are aware that
equipment contains a flammable refrigerant and to ensure safe handling.
When used in accordance with the use conditions required by this rule,
and with equipment specifically designed for its use, propane's
flammability hazard is adequately mitigated and its use is not
significantly greater than that of other acceptable substitutes in
these end-uses.
(c) Toxicity
    In evaluating potential toxicity impacts of propane on human health
in these end-uses, EPA considered both occupational and consumer risks.
In general when evaluating non-cancer toxicity risks of a substitute,
we use measured exposure concentrations if available, or modeled
exposure concentrations using conservative assumptions appropriate to
an end-use, and compare these exposure levels to recommended or
required exposure limits for a compound that are intended to protect
against adverse health effects. Where measured or modeled exposure
levels are below relevant exposure limits for a chemical, we consider
toxicity risks to be acceptable. Other acceptable substitutes listed
for these end-uses have been evaluated for toxicity in this manner,
including ethane for very low temperature refrigeration, ammonia for
commercial ice machines, and a number of HFC blends for all three end-
uses.
    To evaluate the toxicity of propane, EPA estimated the maximum TWA
exposure both for a short-term exposure scenario, with a 30-minute TWA
exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that would be more typical of
occupational exposure for a technician servicing the equipment or a
worker disposing of appliances. The modeling results indicate that both
the short-term (30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker exposure
concentrations would be below the relevant workplace exposure limits.
    A similar analysis of asphyxiation risks considered whether a
worst-case release of refrigerant in the same room sizes would result
in oxygen concentrations of 12 percent or less. This analysis found
that impacts on oxygen concentrations were minimal, with oxygen
concentrations remaining at approximately 21 percent.
    For equipment with which consumers might come into contact, such as
water coolers and commercial ice machines, EPA performed a consumer
exposure analysis. In this analysis, we examined potential catastrophic
release of the entire charge of the substitute in one minute under a
worst-case scenario. We did not examine exposure to consumers in very
low temperature refrigeration, as equipment for this end-use would
typically be used in the workplace, such as in laboratories, and not in
a home or public space. The analysis was undertaken to determine the
short term (30-minute TWA) exposure levels for the substitute, which
were then compared to the toxicity limit to assess the risk to
consumers. The analysis found, even under the highly conservative
assumptions used in the consumer exposure modeling, the estimated 30-
minute consumer exposures to propane are lower than the relevant
toxicity limits.
    Based upon our analysis, workplace and consumer exposure to propane
when used in these end-uses according to the use conditions is not
expected to exceed relevant exposure limits. Thus, propane does not
pose significantly greater toxicity risks than other acceptable
refrigerants in these end-uses. For further information, including
EPA's risk screens and risk assessments as well as information from the
submitters of propane as a substitute refrigerant, see docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0663 and section VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR
22827-8).
ii. What are the final use conditions?
    To ensure that using propane in commercial ice machines, water
coolers, and very low temperature refrigeration equipment will not
cause greater risk to human health or the environment than other
alternatives, we have identified and are establishing use conditions to
address flammability and toxicity concerns.
    Propane's flammability risks are of potential concern because
commercial ice machines, water coolers, and very low temperature
refrigeration equipment have traditionally used refrigerants that are
not flammable. Propane could pose a significant safety concern for
workers and consumers in the end-uses addressed in this action if it is
not handled correctly. In the presence of an ignition source (e.g.,
static electricity spark resulting from closing a door, use of a torch
during service, or a short circuit in wiring that controls the motor of
a compressor), an explosion or a fire could occur when the
concentration of refrigerant exceeds its LFL. Propane's LFL is 21,000
ppm (2.1 percent). Therefore, to use propane safely, it is important to
minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and to reduce the
likelihood that the concentration of propane will exceed the LFL. We
are establishing use conditions that focus on ensuring that these risks