86778 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain AGENCY through Friday, excluding legal Flammable for Retrofits in holidays. The telephone number for the Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat 40 CFR Part 82 Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, Pumps 4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene and [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663; FRL–9952–18– and the telephone number for the Air R-443A in New Residential and Light OAR] and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Storage Warehouses, and Centrifugal and RIN 2060–AS80 Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric Positive Displacement Chillers Protection Division, Office of 5. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigerants for New Centrifugal Chillers New Listings of Substitutes; Changes Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T), Environmental Protection and for New Positive Displacement of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation Chillers of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 6. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Foam Products Under the Significant Washington, DC 20460; telephone Refrigerants for New Cold Storage New Alternatives Policy Program; and number: 202–564–7768; email address: Warehouses Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 [email protected]. Notices 7. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Venting Prohibition for and rulemakings under EPA’s Refrigerants for New Retail Food Significant New Alternatives Policy Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection program are available on EPA’s Processing and Dispensing Equipment) Agency (EPA). Stratospheric Ozone Web site at https:// 8. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Household ACTION: Final rule. www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. Refrigerators and Freezers SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Environmental Protection Agency’s Table of Contents 1. Background 2. What is EPA’s final decision? (EPA) Significant New Alternatives I. General Information 3. How is EPA responding to comments? Policy program, this action lists certain A. Executive Summary C. Foam Blowing Agents substances as acceptable, subject to use B. Does this action apply to me? 1. Change of Listing Status for Certain HFC conditions; lists several substances as C. What acronyms and abbreviations are Foam Blowing Agents for Rigid PU Spray unacceptable; and changes the listing used in the preamble? Foam status for certain substances from II. How does the SNAP program work? 2. Revision to Change of Status Date for acceptable to acceptable, subject to A. What are the statutory requirements and Narrowed Use Limits for Space- and authority for the SNAP program? Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable. B. What are EPA’s regulations This action also exempts propane in 3. Change of Listing Status for Methylene implementing CAA section 612? Chloride in Foams certain refrigeration end-uses from the C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 4. Closed Cell Foam Products Clean Air Act section 608 prohibition program work? D. Fire Suppression and Explosion on venting, release, or disposal. In D. What are the guiding principles of the Protection addition, this action applies SNAP program? 1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total unacceptability determinations for E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating Flooding and Streaming substitutes under the SNAP program? 2. Change of Listing Status for Certain foam-blowing agents to closed cell foam F. How are SNAP determinations updated? products and products containing Perfluorocarbons for Total Flooding G. What does EPA consider in deciding 3. Removal of Use Conditions for closed cell foam that are manufactured whether to add a substance to or remove or imported using these foam blowing Powdered Aerosol D a substance from one of the SNAP lists? VII. How is EPA responding to other public agents. H. Where can I get additional information comments? about the SNAP program? A. General Comments DATES: This rule is effective January 3, III. What actions and information related to 1. Proposed Status Listing Changes 2017. The incorporation by reference of greenhouse gases have bearing on this 2. Proposed Status Change Dates certain publications listed in the rule is action? B. Authority approved by the Director of the Federal IV. How does this action relate to the Climate Action Plan and petitions received 1. General Authority Register as of January 3, 2017. 2. GWP Considerations ADDRESSES: EPA has established a requesting a change in listing status for HFCs? 3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding docket for this action under Docket ID A. Climate Action Plan Principles No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663. All B. Summary of Petitions 4. Petitions documents in the docket are listed on V. How does EPA regulate substitute 5. Application of Criteria for Review of the http://www.regulations.gov Web refrigerants under CAA section 608? Alternatives site. Although listed in the index, some A. What are the statutory requirements C. Cost and Economic Impacts information is not publicly available, concerning venting, release, or disposal 1. Costs of Rule of refrigerants and substitutes 2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small Business e.g., confidential business information Impacts Screening Analysis (CBI) or other information whose under CAA section 608? B. What are EPA’s regulations concerning D. Environmental Impacts of Status disclosure is restricted by statute. venting, release, or disposal of refrigerant Changes Certain other material, such as substitutes? 1. General Comments copyrighted material, is not placed on VI. What is EPA finalizing in this action? 2. EPA’s Climate Benefits Analysis the Internet and will be publicly A. Refrigeration and Stationary Air 3. Energy Efficiency available only in hard copy form. Conditioning E. Interactions With Other Rules Publicly available docket materials are 1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New F. Other Suggestions or Requests available electronically through http:// Commercial Ice Machines, VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment Planning and Review and Executive the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 2. Exemption for Propane From the Order 13563: Improving Regulation and EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Venting Prohibition Under CAA Section Regulatory Review Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 608 for the End-Uses in the New SNAP B. Paperwork Reduction Act DC The Public Reading Room is open Listing C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86779

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act industrial uses, the SNAP program has EPA is also applying unacceptability E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism ensured that businesses and consumers determinations for foam blowing agents F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation have access to information about to closed cell foam products and and Coordination With Indian Tribal suitable alternatives. The SNAP products containing closed cell foam. Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of program works with many stakeholders, See section VI.C.4 for the details of this Children From Environmental Health domestically and abroad, to action. Additionally, EPA is exempting and Safety Risks continuously evaluate and provide propane as a refrigerant in new self- H. Executive Order 13211: Actions updates on safer alternatives and new contained commercial ice machines, in Concerning Regulations That technologies. Thanks to these efforts new water coolers, and in new very low Significantly Affect Energy Supply, and the work of individuals, businesses, temperature refrigeration equipment Distribution, or Use and organizations, the transitions from the venting prohibition under CAA I. National Technology Transfer and generally have been successful. section 608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.c Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 When reviewing a substitute, EPA for the details of this action. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions compares the risk posed by that Per the guiding principles of the To Address Environmental Justice in substitute to the risks posed by other SNAP program, this action does not Minority Populations and Low-Income alternatives and determines whether specify that any alternative is acceptable Populations that specific substitute under review or unacceptable across all sectors and K. Congressional Review Act poses significantly more risk than other end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA IX. References available or potentially available considered the intersection between the I. General Information alternatives for the same use. EPA specific alternative and the particular recently has begun to review the lists in end-use and the availability of A. Executive Summary a broader manner to determine whether substitutes for those particular end-uses. Under section 612 of the Clean Air substitutes added to the lists early in the In the case of refrigeration and AC, we Act (CAA), EPA is required to evaluate program pose significantly more risk consider new equipment to be a substitutes 1 to ozone-depleting than substitutes that have more recently separate end-use from retrofitting substances (ODS) for their risks to been added. As with initial listing existing equipment with a different human health and the environment. decisions, EPA bases decisions to refrigerant from that for which the EPA reviews substitutes within a change the status of an already listed equipment was originally designed. EPA comparative risk framework. More alternative on the same comparative risk is not setting a ‘‘risk threshold’’ for any specifically, section 612 provides that framework. specific SNAP criterion, such that the EPA must prohibit the use of a In this action, EPA is listing a number only acceptable substitutes pose risk substitute where EPA has determined of substances as acceptable, subject to below a specified level of risk. Because that there are other available use conditions; listing several the substitutes available and the types of alternatives that pose less overall risk to substances as unacceptable; and risk they may pose vary by sector and human health and the environment. changing the listing status for certain end-use, our review focuses on the Thus, EPA’s Significant New substances from acceptable to specific end-use and the alternatives for Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, acceptable, subject to narrowed use that end-use, including the other risks which implements section 612, does not limits or to unacceptable. We performed alternatives might pose. Thus, there is provide a static list of alternatives. a comparative risk analysis, based on no bright line that can be established to Instead, the list evolves as EPA makes our criteria for review, with other apply to all sectors and end-uses. Also, decisions informed by our overall alternatives for the relevant end-uses. EPA recognizes that there are a range of understanding of the environmental and For the substances addressed in this substitutes with various uses that human health impacts as well as our action, EPA found significant potential include both fluorinated (e.g., current knowledge about other differences in risk as compared to other hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and alternatives. In the more than twenty available or potentially available (HFOs)) and non- years since the initial SNAP rule was substitutes with respect to one or more fluorinated (e.g., (HCs) promulgated, EPA has modified the specific criteria, such as flammability, and (CO2)) substitutes SNAP lists many times, most often by toxicity, or local air quality. In some that may pose lower overall risk to expanding the list of acceptable cases, those risks could be addressed human health and the environment. substitutes. However, in some cases, through use conditions and EPA is Consistent with CAA section 612 as we EPA has modified the SNAP list by listing several substitutes as acceptable, have historically interpreted it under listing a substitute as unacceptable for subject to use conditions. In other cases, the SNAP program, this rule includes one or more end-uses or by restricting the risks could not be adequately both initial listings and certain the use of a previously listed substitute mitigated through use conditions and, modifications to the current lists based by changing its status for a particular in those cases, EPA is listing several on our evaluation of the substitutes end-use to unacceptable, acceptable new substitutes and changing the status addressed in this action using the SNAP subject to use conditions, or acceptable of several existing substitutes to criteria for evaluation and considering subject to narrowed use. unacceptable. In a few instances, EPA the current suite of other alternatives for Over the past twenty years, the SNAP established narrowed use limits for the specific end-use at issue. program has played an important role in certain substitutes over a limited period The following is a summary of the assisting with a continuous smooth of time for specific military or space-and actions taken in this rule. transition to safer alternatives. Since the aeronautics-related applications in the 1. Acceptable Alternatives, With Use first SNAP framework rule published in refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), Conditions, by End-Use (Initial Listings) 1994, which provided confidence and and foam blowing sectors, on the basis certainty by identifying safer that other acceptable alternatives would (1) For refrigeration, EPA is listing as alternatives in key consumer and not be available for those specific acceptable, subject to use conditions, as applications within broader end-uses, of January 3, 2017: • 1 The terms ‘‘alternatives’’ and ‘‘substitutes’’ are but acceptable alternatives were Propane in new commercial ice used interchangeably in this document. expected to become available over time. machines, new water coolers, and new

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86780 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

very low temperature refrigeration except as otherwise allowed under a as unacceptable for military or space- equipment. narrowed use limit, as of January 1, and aeronautics-related applications as (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning 2024: of January 1, 2025: (MVAC) systems, EPA is listing, as • FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC- • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/ thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at of January 3, 2017: 70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ least four percent HFC-245fa, and • HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R- commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with medium-duty passenger vehicles 410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R- remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel trucks, and complete HD vans. 438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 TI.2 (3) For fire suppression and explosion composition), SP34E, and THR-03. (9) For rigid PU low-pressure two- protection end-uses, EPA is listing as (3) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA component spray foam, EPA is listing as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as is listing as acceptable, subject to unacceptable for all uses, except of January 3, 2017: narrowed use limits, as of January 1, military or space-and aeronautics- • 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene 2024: related applications, as of January 1, (2-BTP) as a total flooding agent for use • HFC-134a for military marine 2021; as acceptable, subject to narrowed in engine nacelles and auxiliary power vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for use limits, for military or space-and units (APUs) on aircraft; and human-rated spacecraft and related aeronautics-related applications, as of • 2-BTP as a streaming agent for use support equipment January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for in handheld extinguishers in aircraft. (4) For new positive displacement military or space-and aeronautics- 2. Unacceptable Alternatives by End- chillers, EPA is listing as acceptable, related applications as of January 1, Use (Initial Listings) subject to narrowed use limits, as of 2025: January 1, 2024: • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends (1) For retrofit residential and light • HFC-134a for military marine thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at commercial AC and heat pumps— vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for least four percent HFC-245fa, and unitary split AC systems and heat human-rated spacecraft and related commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with pumps, EPA is listing as unacceptable, support equipment seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the as of January 3, 2017: • (5) For new cold storage warehouses, remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel All refrigerants identified as EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of TI.3 flammability Class 3 in American January 1, 2023: (10) For rigid PU one-component National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ • HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a foam sealants, EPA is listing as American Society of Heating, (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R- unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020: Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34–2013; R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at and 422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, least four percent HFC-245fa, and • All refrigerants meeting the criteria R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ composition). seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the ASHRAE Standard 34–2013. These (6) For new retail food refrigeration remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel include, but are not limited to, 4 (refrigerated food processing and TI. refrigerant products sold under the dispensing equipment), EPA is listing as (11) For all foam blowing end-uses names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021: except for rigid PU spray foam, EPA is refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, • HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/ listing as unacceptable, as of January 1, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF- 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- 2025: 22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, • 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, HFCs and HFC blends previously HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- listed as unacceptable as of January 1, 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a. 2022, for space-and aeronautics-related (2) For new residential and light 422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R- applications. commercial AC and heat pumps, cold (12) For flexible PU foam storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, 507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). (7) For new household refrigerators applications, EPA is listing as and positive displacement chillers, EPA and freezers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, as of January 3, 2017: is listing as unacceptable, as of January • unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021: Methylene chloride. 3, 2017: • While EPA proposed and requested • Propylene and R-443A. FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ comments on listing certain 3. Unacceptable Alternatives by End- 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R- perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as unacceptable Use (Change of Listing Status) 410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, in fire suppression total flooding uses, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- EPA is not finalizing that change in this (1) For new centrifugal chillers, EPA rulemaking. is listing as unacceptable, except as 424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R- otherwise allowed under a narrowed 437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 4. Other Changes use limit, as of January 1, 2024: formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), (1) For all foam blowing end-uses, • FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC- SP34E, and THR-03. EPA is prohibiting the use of closed cell 227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/ (8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high- pressure two-component spray foam, 134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/ 2 Closed cell foam products and products 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, EPA is listing as unacceptable for all containing closed cell foams manufactured on or R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R- uses, except military or space- and before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. 421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, aeronautics-related applications, as of 3 Closed cell foam products and products R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS- January 1, 2020; as acceptable, subject to containing closed cell foams manufactured on or narrowed use limits, for military or before January 1, 2021, may be used after that date. 44 (2003 composition), and THR-03. 4 Closed cell foam products and products (2) For new positive displacement space-and aeronautics-related containing closed cell foams manufactured on or chillers, EPA is listing as unacceptable, applications, as of January 1, 2020; and before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86781

foam products and products that (2) For fire suppression total flooding as ‘‘acceptable, subject to use contain closed cell foam manufactured uses, EPA is clarifying the listing for conditions,’’ as of January 3, 2017. with an unacceptable foam blowing Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X®), which B. Does this action apply to me? agent on or after the later of (A) was previously listed as both December 1, 2017 or (B) the date of the ‘‘acceptable’’ and ‘‘acceptable, subject to Potential entities that may be affected unacceptability listing. use conditions,’’ by removing the listing by this rule include:

TABLE 1—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES BY NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE

Category NAICS code Description of regulated 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 should carefully examine the C. What acronyms and abbreviations are exhaustive, but rather provides a guide applicability criteria found in 40 CFR used in the preamble? for readers regarding entities likely to be part 82. If you have questions regarding Below is a list of acronyms and regulated by this action. This table lists the applicability of this action to a abbreviations used in the preamble of the types of entities that EPA is now particular entity, consult the person this document: aware could potentially be regulated by listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AC—Air Conditioning this action. Other types of entities not CONTACT section. AAC—American Automotive Council listed in the table could also be ACGIH—American Conference of regulated. To determine whether your Governmental Industrial Hygienists entity is regulated by this action, you AEGL—Acute Emergency Guideline Limits

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86782 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

AHIA—American Industrial Hygiene IPR—Industrial Process Refrigeration TLV—Threshold Limit Value Association kPa—Kilopascal TWA—Time Weighted Average AHRI—Air Conditioning, Heating and kW—Kilowatt UNFCCC—United Nations Framework Refrigeration Institute LD—Light-Duty Convention on Climate Change AIRAH—Australian Institute of Refrigeration, LD GHG—Light-Duty UL—Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Air Conditioning and Heating LFL—Lower Flammability Limit UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ANSI—American National Standards LOAEL—Lowest Observed Adverse Effect UNEP—United Nations Environmental Institute Level Programme APU—Auxiliary Power Unit MAC Directive—Directive on Mobile Air VOC—Volatile Organic Compound ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, Conditioning WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning MACT—Maximum Achievable Technology Limit Engineers MDPV—Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle ASRAC—Appliance Standards and MIR—Maximum Incremental Reactivity II. How does the SNAP program work? Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee MMTCO2eq—Million Metric Tons of Carbon A. What are the statutory requirements ASTM—American Society for Testing and Dioxide Equivalent and authority for the SNAP program? Materials MVAC—Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning BTU—British Thermal Units MY—Model Year CAA section 612 requires EPA to CAA—Clean Air Act N2O— develop a program for evaluating CAP—Climate Action Plan NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality alternatives to ODS. This program is CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service Standards known as the SNAP program. The major Registry Identification Number NAICS—North American Industrial provisions of section 612 are: CBI—Confidential Business Information Classification System CFC— NESHAP—National Emission Standards for 1. Rulemaking CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Hazardous Air Pollutants Section 612(c) requires EPA to CH4— NFPA—National Fire Protection Association CMAQ—Community Multiscale Air Quality NHTSA—National Highway Traffic Safety promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon CO2—Carbon Dioxide Administration CO2eq—Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NIK—Not-In-Kind (CFC), halon, , CRP—Cooperative Research Programs NIOSH—National Institute for Occupational methyl , methyl bromide, CSA—Canadian Standards Association Safety and Health hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and CUAC—Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner NOAEL—No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level chlorobromomethane) or class II CUHP—Commercial Unitary Heat Pump NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) DoD—United States Department of Defense NRDC—Natural Resource Defense Council substance with any substitute that the DOE—United States Department of Energy OEM—Original Equipment Manufacturer Administrator determines may present DX—Direct Expansion ODP—Ozone Depletion Potential EEAP—Environmental Effects Assessment ODS—Ozone-Depleting Substance adverse effects to human health or the Panel OMB—United States Office of Management environment where the Administrator EIA—Environmental Investigation Agency and Budget has identified an alternative that (1) EO—Executive Order OSHA—United States Occupational Safety reduces the overall risk to human health EPA—United States Environmental and Health Administration and the environment and (2) is currently Protection Agency PEL—Permissible Exposure Limit or potentially available. EU—European Union PFC—Perfluorocarbon FMEA—Failure Mode and Effects Analysis PMS—Pantone Matching System 2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable FAA—Federal Aviation Administration ppb—Parts Per Billion Substitutes FCA—Fiat Chrysler Automobiles PPE—Personal Protective Equipment Section 612(c) requires EPA to FR—Federal Register ppm—Parts Per Million publish a list of the substitutes that it FTA—Fault Tree Analysis PSM—Process Safety Management g—Gram PTAC—Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners finds to be unacceptable for specific GHG—Greenhouse Gas PTHP—Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps uses and to publish a corresponding list GtCO2eq—Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide PU—Polyurethane of acceptable substitutes for specific Equivalent RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery uses. The list of ‘‘acceptable’’ substitutes GWP— Act is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ GVWR—Gross Vehicle Weight Rating REL—Recommended Exposure Limit substitutes-sector and the lists of HBFC—Hydrobromofluorocarbon RfC—Reference Concentration ‘‘unacceptable,’’ ‘‘acceptable, subject to HC— RMP—Risk Management Plan use conditions,’’ and ‘‘acceptable, HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon RSES—Refrigeration Service Engineers subject to narrowed use limits’’ HD—Heavy-Duty Society HD GHG—Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas RTOC—Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and substitutes are found in the appendices HF— Fluoride Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon SARPS—Standards and Recommended 3. Petition Process HFO— Practices IBC—International Building Code SAE ICCC—SAE International’s Interior Section 612(d) grants the right to any ICAO—International Civil Aviation Climate Control Committee person to petition EPA to add a Organization SAP—Scientific Assessment Panel substance to, or delete a substance from, ICC—International Code Council SF6—Sulfur Hexafluoride the lists published in accordance with ICF—ICF International, Inc. SIP—State Implementation Plan section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days IDLH—Immediately Dangerous to Life and SISNOSE—significant economic impact on a to grant or deny a petition. Where the Health substantial number of small entities Agency grants the petition, EPA must IEC—International Electrochemical SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy Commission SRES—Special Report on Emissions publish the revised lists within an IGSD—Institute for Governance and Scenarios additional six months. Sustainable Development STEL—Short-term Exposure Limit 4. 90-Day Notification IIAR—Institute of Refrigeration SUV—Sport Utility Vehicles IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate TEAP—Technical and Economic Assessment Section 612(e) directs EPA to require Change Panel any person who produces a chemical IPLV—Integrated Part-Load Value TFA—Trifluoroacetic Acid substitute for a class I substance to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86783

notify the Agency not less than 90 days may also apply to importers, the environment are not significantly before new or existing chemicals are formulators, equipment manufacturers, greater than other substitutes. EPA introduced into interstate commerce for or end users 6 when they are responsible describes such substitutes as significant new uses as substitutes for a for introducing a substitute into ‘‘acceptable, subject to use conditions.’’ class I substance. The producer must interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP Entities that use these substitutes also provide the Agency with the review process begins once EPA without meeting the associated use producer’s unpublished health and receives the submission and determines conditions are in violation of CAA safety studies on such substitutes. that the submission includes complete section 612 and EPA’s SNAP regulations 5. Outreach and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). (40 CFR 82.174(c)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 Section 612(b)(1) states that the CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a For some substitutes, the Agency may Administrator shall seek to maximize substitute earlier than 90 days after a permit a narrow range of use within an the use of federal research facilities and complete submission has been provided end-use or sector. For example, the resources to assist users of class I and to the Agency. Agency may limit the use of a substitute II substances in identifying and The Agency has identified four to certain end-uses or specific developing alternatives to the use of possible decision categories for applications within an industry sector. such substances in key commercial substitute submissions: Acceptable; The Agency generally requires a user of applications. acceptable, subject to use conditions; a substitute subject to narrowed use 6. Clearinghouse acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR acceptable substitutes are available for Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 82.180(b).7 their specific application.9 EPA to set up a public clearinghouse of Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered describes these substitutes as alternative chemicals, product ‘‘acceptable, subject to narrowed use substitutes, and alternative ‘‘use restrictions’’ and are explained later in this action. Substitutes that are limits.’’ A person using a substitute that manufacturing processes that are is acceptable, subject to narrowed use available for products and deemed acceptable without use limits in applications and end-uses that manufacturing processes which use conditions can be used for all are not consistent with the narrowed class I and II substances. applications within the relevant sector end-uses and without limits under use limit is using these substitutes in B. What are EPA’s regulations SNAP on how they may be used. violation of CAA section 612 and EPA’s implementing CAA section 612? Substitutes that are acceptable, subject SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). On March 18, 1994, EPA published to use restrictions may be used only in The section 612 mandate for EPA to the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) accordance with those restrictions. prohibit the use of a substitute that may which established the process for Substitutes that are found to be present risk to human health or the administering the SNAP program and unacceptable may not be used after the environment where a lower risk issued EPA’s first lists identifying date specified in the rulemaking adding alternative is available or potentially acceptable and unacceptable substitutes them to the list of unacceptable available 10 provides EPA with the 8 in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR substitutes. authority to change the listing status of part 82 subpart G). These sectors After reviewing a substitute, the a particular substitute if such a change include the following: Refrigeration and Agency may determine that a substitute is justified by new information or is acceptable only if certain conditions AC; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; changed circumstance. The Agency in the way that the substitute is used are fire suppression and explosion publishes its SNAP program decisions met to ensure risks to human health and protection; sterilants; aerosols; in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice adhesives, coatings and inks; and state, territory, possession or the District of and comment rulemaking to place any tobacco expansion. These sectors alternative on the list of prohibited comprise the principal industrial sectors Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession substitutes, to list a substitute as that historically consumed the largest or District of Columbia. The entry points for which acceptable only subject to use volumes of ODS. a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in conditions or narrowed use limits, or to C. How do the regulations for the SNAP which the product was manufactured, the entry into program work? a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer 9 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA releases the product for sale or distribution, and at established narrowed use limits for certain Under the SNAP regulations, anyone the site of United States Customs clearance. substitutes over a limited period of time for specific who produces a substitute to replace a 6 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘end-use’’ means MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that class I or II ODS in one of the eight processes or classes of specific applications within other acceptable alternatives would not be available major industrial use sectors listed major industrial sectors where a substitute is used for those specific applications within broader end- to replace an ODS. uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to previously must provide the Agency 7 The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ become available over time, e.g., after military with notice and the required health and referring to submissions for which EPA has not qualification testing for foam blowing agents in safety information on the substitute at reached a determination, under this provision. military applications or after development of least 90 days before introducing it into 8 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘use’’ means any improved servicing infrastructure in a destination interstate commerce for significant new use of a substitute for a class I or class II ozone- country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export. depleting compound, including but not limited to 10 In addition to acceptable commercially use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). use in a manufacturing process or product, in available alternatives, the SNAP program may While this requirement typically applies consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate consider potentially available alternatives. The to chemical manufacturers as the person uses, such as formulation or packaging for other SNAP program’s definition of ‘‘potentially likely to be planning to introduce the subsequent uses. This definition of use available’’ is ‘‘any alternative for which adequate 5 encompasses manufacturing process of products health, safety, and environmental data, as required substitute into interstate commerce, it both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a manufactured within the United States exclusively determination of acceptability, and which the 5 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ‘‘interstate for export are subject to SNAP requirements since Agency reasonably believes to be technically commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation the definition of use in the rule includes use in the feasible, even if not all testing has yet been of any product between one state, territory, manufacturing process, which occurs within the completed and the alternative is not yet produced possession or the District of Columbia, and another United States. or sold.’’ (40 CFR 82.172)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86784 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

remove a substitute from either the list 2. Do Not Require That Substitutes Be 6. Do Not Endorse Products of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. Risk Free To Be Found Acceptable Manufactured by Specific Companies In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of Substitutes found to be acceptable The Agency does not issue company- acceptability’’ to notify the public of must not pose significantly greater risk specific product endorsements. In many substitutes that are deemed acceptable than other substitutes, but they do not cases, the Agency may base its analysis with no restrictions. As described in the have to be risk free. A key goal of the on data received on individual preamble to the rule initially SNAP program is to promote the use of products, but the addition of a implementing the SNAP program (59 FR substitutes that minimize risks to substitute to the acceptable list based on 13044; March 18, 1994), rulemaking human health and the environment that analysis does not represent an procedures are not necessary to list relative to other alternatives. In some endorsement of that company’s substitutes that are acceptable without cases, this approach may involve products. restrictions because such listings neither designating a substitute acceptable even 7. Defer to Other Environmental impose any sanction nor prevent anyone though the compound may pose a risk Regulations When Warranted from using a substitute. of some type, provided its use does not Many SNAP listings include pose significantly greater risk than other In some cases, EPA and other federal ‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘further information’’ to alternatives. agencies have developed extensive provide additional information on regulations under other sections of the 3. Restrict Those Substitutes That Are CAA or other statutes that address substitutes. Since this additional Significantly Worse information is not part of the regulatory potential environmental or human decision, these statements are not EPA does not intend to restrict a health effects that may result from the binding for use of the substitute under substitute if it has only marginally use of alternatives to class I and class II the SNAP program. However, regulatory greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions substances. For example, use of some requirements so listed are binding under would be extremely difficult. The substitutes may in some cases entail other regulatory programs (e.g., worker Agency also does not want to intercede increased use of chemicals that protection regulations promulgated by in the market’s choice of substitutes by contribute to tropospheric air pollution. the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health listing as unacceptable all but one The SNAP program takes existing Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘further substitute for each end-use, and does regulations under other programs into information’’ classification does not not intend to restrict substitutes on the account when reviewing substitutes. necessarily include all other legal market unless a substitute has been E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating obligations pertaining to the use of the proposed or is being used that is clearly substitutes under the SNAP program? substitute. While the items listed are not more harmful to human health or the legally binding under the SNAP environment than other alternatives. EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is program, EPA encourages users of 4. Evaluate Risks by Use substitutes to apply all statements in the acceptable or unacceptable. These ‘‘further information’’ column in their Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the criteria, which can be found at use of these substitutes. In many intersection between the characteristics § 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric instances, the information simply refers of the substitute itself and its specific effects and related health and to sound operating practices that have end-use application. Section 612 environmental effects, ecosystem risks, already been identified in existing requires that substitutes be evaluated by consumer risks, flammability, and cost industry and/or building codes or use. Environmental and human health and availability of the substitute. To standards. Thus, many of the exposures can vary significantly enable EPA to assess these criteria, we statements, if adopted, would not depending on the particular application require submitters to include various require the affected user to make of a substitute. Thus, the risk information including ODP, global significant changes in existing operating characterizations must be designed to warming potential (GWP), toxicity, practices. represent differences in the flammability, and the potential for environmental and human health effects human exposure. D. What are the guiding principles of the associated with diverse uses. This When evaluating potential substitutes, SNAP Program? approach cannot, however, imply EPA evaluates these criteria in the fundamental tradeoffs with respect to following groupings: The seven guiding principles of the different types of risk to either the 1. Atmospheric effects—The SNAP SNAP program, elaborated in the environment or to human health. program evaluates the potential preamble to the initial SNAP rule and contributions to both ozone depletion consistent with section 612, are 5. Provide the Regulated Community and climate change. The SNAP program discussed in this section. With Information as Soon as Possible considers the ODP and the 100-year 1. Evaluate Substitutes Within a The Agency recognizes the need to integrated GWP of compounds to assess Comparative Risk Framework provide the regulated community with atmospheric effects. information on the acceptability of 2. Exposure assessments—The SNAP The SNAP program evaluates the risk various substitutes as soon as possible. program uses exposure assessments to of alternative compounds compared to To do so, EPA issues notices or estimate concentration levels of available or potentially available determinations of acceptability and substitutes to which workers, substitutes to the ozone-depleting rules identifying substitutes as consumers, the general population, and compounds which they are intended to unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use the environment may be exposed over a replace. The risk factors that are conditions; or acceptable, subject to determined period of time. These considered include ozone depletion narrowed use limits, in the Federal assessments are based on personal potential (ODP) as well as flammability, Register. In addition, we maintain lists monitoring data or area sampling data if toxicity, occupational health and safety, of acceptable and unacceptable available. Exposure assessments may be and contributions to climate change and alternatives on our Web site, conducted for many types of releases other environmental factors. www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. including:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86785

• Releases in the workplace and in pollutant (under CAA sections 112(b) use as an alternative to a class I or class homes; and 202(l)) or hazardous waste under II substance. These 90-day notifications • Releases to ambient air and surface the Resource Conservation and are required by CAA section 612(e) for water; Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C producers of substitutes to class I • Releases from the management of regulations. substances for new uses and, in all other solid wastes. EPA’s consideration of cost in listing cases, by EPA regulations issued under 3. Toxicity data—The SNAP program decisions is limited to evaluating the sections 114 and 301 of the Act to uses toxicity data to assess the possible cost of the substitute under review implement section 612(c). health and environmental effects of pursuant to § 82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is Finally, since the inception of the exposure to substitutes. We use broad distinct from consideration of costs SNAP program, we have interpreted the health-based criteria such as: associated with the use of other section 612 mandate to find substitutes • Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) alternatives to which the substitute is acceptable or unacceptable to include for occupational exposure; being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, the authority to act on our own to add • Inhalation reference concentrations 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004) at 1,378 or remove a substance from the SNAP (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic effects on (J. Rogers, concurring in part and lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18, the general population; dissenting in part) (‘‘While the SNAP 1994). In determining whether to add or • Cancer slope factors for regulations make the ‘cost and remove a substance from the SNAP lists, carcinogenic risk to members of the availability of the substitute’ an element we consider whether there are other general population. of acceptability . . . that concern is alternatives that pose lower overall risk When considering risks in the limited to whether EPA ‘has . . . reason to human health and the environment. workplace, if OSHA has not issued a to prohibit its use,’ not to whether In determining whether to modify a PEL for a compound, EPA then cleaner alternatives for the substance are listing of a substitute we undertake the considers Recommended Exposure already ‘currently or potentially same consideration, but do so in the Limits (RELs) from the National available’.... Consideration of light of new data that may not have been Institute for Occupational Safety and transition costs is thus precluded by the available at the time of our original Health (NIOSH), Workplace SNAP regulations as currently written, listing decision, including information Environmental Exposure Limits irrespective of whether it might be on substitutes that was not included in (WEELs) set by the American Industrial permitted under CAA § 612(c) . . . .’’). our comparative review at the time of Hygiene Association (AIHA), or Over the past twenty years, the menu our initial listing decision and new threshold limit values (TLVs) set by the of substitutes has become much broader information on substitutes previously American Conference of Governmental and a great deal of new information has reviewed. Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits been developed on many substitutes. G. What does EPA consider in deciding for occupational exposure or exposure Because the overall goal of the SNAP whether to add a substance to or remove to the general population are not already program is to ensure that substitutes a substance from one of the SNAP lists? established, then EPA derives these listed as acceptable do not pose values following the Agency’s peer significantly greater risk to human As described in this document and review guidelines. Exposure health and the environment than other elsewhere, including in the initial SNAP information is combined with toxicity substitutes, the SNAP criteria continue rule published in the Federal Register information to explore any basis for to be informed by our current overall on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), CAA concern. Toxicity data are used with understanding of environmental and section 612 requires EPA to list as existing EPA guidelines to develop human health impacts and our unacceptable any substitute substance health-based limits for interim use in experience with and current knowledge where it finds that there are other these risk characterizations. about alternatives. Over time, the range alternatives that reduce overall risk to 4. Flammability—The SNAP program of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has human health and the environment. The examines flammability as a safety changed, and at the same time, scientific initial SNAP rule included submission concern for workers and consumers. approaches have evolved to more requirements and presented the EPA assesses flammability risk using accurately assess the potential environmental and health risk factors data on: environmental and human health that the SNAP program considers in the • Flash point and flammability limits impacts of these chemicals and comparative risk framework it uses to (e.g., ASHRAE flammability/ alternative technologies. determine whether there are other alternatives that pose significantly lower combustibility classifications); F. How are SNAP determinations • Data on testing of blends with risk than the substitute under review. updated? flammable components; EPA makes decisions based on the • Test data on flammability in Three mechanisms exist for modifying particular end-use where a substitute is consumer applications conducted by the list of SNAP determinations. First, to be used. EPA has, in many cases, independent laboratories; and under section 612(d), the Agency must found certain substitutes acceptable • Information on flammability risk review and either grant or deny only for limited end-uses or subject to mitigation techniques. petitions to add or delete substances use restrictions. In the decades since 5. Other environmental impacts—The from the SNAP list of acceptable or ODS were first invented in the 1920s, SNAP program also examines other unacceptable substitutes. That provision American consumers relied on products potential environmental impacts like allows any person to petition the using ODS for diverse uses including ecotoxicity and local air quality Administrator to add a substance to the aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, impacts. A compound that is likely to be list of acceptable or unacceptable solvent cleaning, and fire protection. discharged to water may be evaluated substitutes or to remove a substance The agreement by governments to phase for impacts on aquatic life. Some from either list. The second means is out production of ODS under the substitutes are volatile organic through the notifications which must be Montreal Protocol on Substances that compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes submitted to EPA 90 days before Deplete the Ozone Layer led to whenever a potential substitute is introduction of a substitute into inevitable questions about whether considered a hazardous or toxic air interstate commerce for significant new suitable alternatives could be found in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86786 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

all cases, and in the larger sense, about new information about the toxicity of otherwise posing comparable levels of how to limit negative impacts on society one of the chemicals in the blend. risk. from use of alternatives. Another example of EPA revising a In the July 2015 rule, various HFCs It has now been over twenty years listing determination occurred in 2007, and HFC-containing blends that were since the initial SNAP rule was when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC- promulgated. When the SNAP program previously listed as acceptable under 142b as unacceptable for use in the foam began, the number of substitutes the SNAP program were listed as available for consideration was, for sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). unacceptable in various end-uses in the many end-uses, somewhat limited. These HCFCs, which are ozone- aerosols, foam blowing, and Thus, while the SNAP program’s initial depleting and subject to a global refrigeration and AC sectors where there comparative assessments of overall risk production phaseout, were initially are other alternatives that pose lower to human health and the environment listed as acceptable substitutes since overall risk to human health and the were rigorous, often there were few they had a lower ODP than the environment for specific uses. The July substitutes upon which to apply the substances they were replacing and 2015 rule also changed the status from comparative assessment. The there were no other alternatives that acceptable to unacceptable for certain immediacy of the class I phaseout often posed lower overall risk at the time of HCFCs being phased out of production meant that EPA listed class II ODS (i.e., EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a under the Montreal Protocol and CAA HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that path forward for some sectors and end- section 605(a). Per the guiding they too would be phased out and, at uses at a time when the number of principles of the SNAP program, the best, could offer an interim solution. substitutes was far more limited. In light July 2015 rule did not specify that any Other Title VI provisions such as the of the expanded availability of other HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across section 610 Nonessential Products Ban alternatives with lower overall risk to all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all and the section 605 Use Restriction human health and the environment in cases, EPA considered the intersection made clear that a listing under the specific foam end-uses, and taking into between the specific substitute and the SNAP program could not convey account the 2010 class II ODS phase particular end-use and the availability permanence. down step, EPA changed the listing for of substitutes for those particular end- Since EPA issued the initial SNAP these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from uses when making its determinations. rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 20 acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, rules and 31 notices that generally EPA noted that continued use of these H. Where can I get additional expand the menu of options for the HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary information about the SNAP program? various SNAP sectors and end-uses. depletion of the ozone layer and delay For copies of the comprehensive Thus, comparisons today apply to a the transition to substitutes that pose broader range of alternatives—both lower overall risk to human health and SNAP lists of substitutes or additional chemical and non-chemical—than at the the environment. EPA established a information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s inception of the SNAP program. change of status date that recognized Web site at https://www.epa.gov/snap. Industry experience with these that existing users needed time to adjust For more information on the Agency’s substitutes has also grown during the their manufacturing processes to safely process for administering the SNAP history of the program. program or criteria for evaluation of In addition to an expanding menu of accommodate the use of other substitutes. substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP substitutes, developments over the past rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 20 years have improved our GWP is one of several criteria EPA 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82 understanding of global environmental considers in the overall evaluation of subpart G. A complete chronology of issues. With regard to that information, the alternatives under the SNAP SNAP decisions and the appropriate our review of substitutes in this action program. The President’s June 2013 citations are found at https://www.epa. includes comparative assessments that 11 Climate Action Plan (CAP) states, ‘‘To gov/snap/snap-regulations. consider our evolving understanding of reduce emissions of HFCs, the United a variety of factors. For example, GWPs States can and will lead both through III. What actions and information and climate effects are not new elements international diplomacy as well as related to greenhouse gases have in our evaluation framework, but as is domestic actions.’’ Furthermore, the bearing on this action? the case with all of our review criteria, CAP states that EPA will ‘‘use its the amount of information has authority through the Significant New GWP is one of several criteria EPA expanded and the quality has improved. Alternatives Policy Program to considers in the overall evaluation of To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing encourage private sector investment in alternatives under the SNAP program. management of the SNAP program low-emissions technology by identifying During the past two decades, the general considers new information, including and approving climate-friendly science on climate change and the new substitutes, and improved chemicals while prohibiting certain uses potential contributions of greenhouse understanding of the risk to the of the most harmful chemical gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate environment and human health. EPA alternatives.’’ On July 20, 2015 (80 FR change have become better understood. previously has taken several actions 42870), EPA issued a final regulation On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, revising listing determinations from that was our first effort to take a broader the Administrator issued an acceptable or acceptable with use look at the SNAP lists, where we conditions to unacceptable. On January endangerment finding determining that, focused on those listed substitutes that 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant for purposes of CAA section 202(a), have a high GWP relative to other blend known by the trade name MT-31 elevated atmospheric concentrations of alternatives in specific end-uses, while as unacceptable for all refrigeration and the combination of six key well-mixed AC end-uses for which EPA had GHGs in the atmosphere—CO2, methane 11 previously listed this blend as an The White House, 2013. President’s Climate (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, PFCs, Action Plan. This document is accessible at: https:// and sulfur hexafluoride (SF )—may acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/ 6 3, 1997). EPA based this decision on president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. reasonably be anticipated to endanger

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86787

18 the public health and the public welfare equivalent (GtCO2eq) in 2050, which IV. How does this action relate to the of current and future generations.12 is comparable to the drop in annual Climate Action Plan and petitions Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 received requesting a change in listing 19 potent GHGs.13 Although they represent GtCO2eq between 1988 and 2010. By status for HFCs? a small fraction of the current total 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the A. Climate Action Plan atmosphere is projected to increase volume of GHG emissions, their This action is consistent with a warming impact per kilogram is very radiative forcing in the range of 0.22 to 0.25 W m¥2. This increase may be as provision in the President’s CAP strong. While GHGs such as CO2 and much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the announced June 2013: CH4 are unintentional byproducts from energy production, industrial and expected increase in radiative forcing Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority agricultural activities, and mobile due to the buildup of CO2 since 2000, according to the Intergovernmental through the Significant New Alternatives sources, HFCs are intentionally Policy Program to encourage private sector produced chemicals.14 The most Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios investment in low-emissions technology by commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC- identifying and approving climate-friendly (SRES).20 134a has a GWP of 1,430, which means To appreciate the significance chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of of the effect of projected HFC emissions it traps 1,430 times as much heat per the most harmful chemical alternatives. within the context of all GHGs, HFCs kilogram as CO2 does over 100 years. The CAP further states, ‘‘To reduce would be six to nine percent of the CO Because of their role in replacing ODS, 2 emissions of HFCs, the United States emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC’s both in the United States and globally, can and will lead both through highest CO emissions scenario and and because of the increasing use of 2 international diplomacy as well as equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are 2 domestic actions.’’ This action is emissions based on the IPCC’s lowest projected to increase substantially and consistent with that call for leadership CO emissions pathway.21 22 Additional at an increasing rate over the next 2 through domestic actions. Regarding information concerning the peer- several decades if their production is international leadership, for the past reviewed scientific literature and left uncontrolled. In the United States, seven years, the United States, Canada, emission scenarios is available in the and Mexico have proposed an emissions of HFCs are increasing more docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– amendment to the Montreal Protocol to quickly than those of any other GHGs, OAR–2015–0663). and globally they are increasing 10–15 phase down the production and percent annually.15 At that rate, PFCs are potent GHGs and have very consumption of HFCs. Adopting the emissions are projected to double by long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs are North American proposal would reduce 2020 and triple by 2030.16 HFCs are also produced as a byproduct of various cumulative HFC emissions by more than rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. industrial processes associated with 90 GtCO2eq through 2050. The atmospheric concentration of HFC- aluminum production and the Throughout our discussions with the 134a has increased by about ten percent manufacturing of semiconductors, then regulated community, we have sought to per year from 2006 to 2012, and the captured for intentional use or convey our understanding of the role concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC- manufactured for use in various that certainty plays in enabling the 125, which are components of industrial applications. PFCs have had robust development and uptake of commonly used refrigerant blends, have limited use in the eight sectors regulated alternatives. As noted above, some of risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per under SNAP. While status changes for the key strengths of the SNAP program, year from 2007–2011, respectively.17 certain PFCs in fire suppression total such as its substance and end-use flooding uses were proposed, no final specific consideration, its multi-criteria Without action, annual global action on PFCs in this end-use is being basis for action, and its petition process, emissions of HFCs are projected to rise taken in this action. counters measures some have advocated to about 6.4 to 9.9 gigatons of CO2 could provide more certainty, such as 18 Velders, G.J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. setting specific numerical criteria for 12 EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for McFarland, S.O. Andersen (2009). ‘‘The large environmental evaluations (e.g., all Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for contribution of projected HFC emissions to future Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean climate forcing.’’ Proceedings of the National compounds with GWP greater than 150). Air Act. December, 2009. This document is Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. That said, this action provides accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ 19 UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in additional certainty in the specific cases _ Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment TSD.pdf. Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP addressed. In addition, we remain 13 IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document committed to continuing to actively the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/ Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and pdf/HFC_report.pdf. seek stakeholder views and to share our Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New York. 20 Ibid. thinking at the earliest moment This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc. 21 practicable on any future actions, as part _ Velders, Guus JM, et al. ‘‘Future atmospheric ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc full.pdf. abundances and climate forcings from scenarios of of our commitment to provide greater 14 HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a global and regional hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) certainty to producers and consumers in byproduct during the production of HCFC-22 and emissions.’’ Atmospheric Environment 123 (2015): other chemicals. 200–209. SNAP-regulated industrial sectors. 15 UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in 22 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario B. Summary of Petitions Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. EPA received two petitions on is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/ In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science _ October 6, 2015, requesting the Agency pdf/HFC report.pdf. Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 16 Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel to modify certain acceptability listings Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. of high-GWP substances in various end- and Papers. 2013. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. uses. The first was submitted by the 17 Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Natural Resource Defense Council Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United NIST Conference 2012. This document is accessible Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/ is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and Sustainable Development (IGSD) 2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf. . and the second by the Environmental

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86788 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Investigation Agency (EIA).23 24 The rulemaking. In a petition EIA submitted Section 608(c)(2) extends the NRDC/IGSD petition requests that EPA to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to any change the listing status of certain high- that ‘‘in light of the comparative nature substitutes for class I or class II GWP chemicals they believe are used of the SNAP program’s evaluation of substances used as refrigerants. This most frequently in the United States in substitutes and given that other prohibition applies to all refrigerant various end-uses in the refrigeration and acceptable substitutes are on the market substitutes unless the Administrator AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression or soon to be available,’’ EPA should determines that the venting, releasing, and explosion protection sectors. The ‘‘remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a or disposing of the substitute does not EIA petition requests that EPA list blends from the list of acceptable pose a threat to the environment. Thus, additional high-GWP HFCs as substitutes for any ozone-depleting section 608(c) provides EPA authority to unacceptable or acceptable, subject to substance in any non-essential uses promulgate regulations to interpret and use restrictions, in a number of end-uses under EPA’s SNAP program.’’ enforce this prohibition on venting, in the refrigeration and AC, and fire Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD releasing, or disposing of class I or class suppression and explosion protection filed a petition on April 27, 2012, II substances and their refrigerant sectors. In support of their petitions, the requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a substitutes, which this action refers to petitioners identified other alternatives from the list of acceptable substitutes in as the ‘‘venting prohibition.’’ EPA’s they claim are available for use in the household refrigerators and freezers, authority under section 608(c) includes specified end-uses and present lower and stand-alone retail food refrigerators authority to exempt certain refrigerant risks to human health and environment. and freezers, among other end-uses. On substitutes for class I or class II These petitions are more fully described August 7, 2013, EPA found both substances from the venting prohibition in the notice of proposed rulemaking petitions to be incomplete. While EPA under section 608(c)(2) when the (NPRM) and are available in the docket has not found these petitions complete Administrator determines that such for this rulemaking. While EPA has not at this time, EPA possesses sufficient venting, release, or disposal does not found these petitions complete at this information to finalize action on some pose a threat to the environment. EPA’s time, EPA possesses sufficient of the end-uses covered by the petitions. authority to promulgate some of the information to finalize action on some Similar to the October 2015 petitions, regulatory revisions in this action is of the end-uses covered by the petitions. this action is responsive to certain thus based in part on CAA section 608. This action is responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the B. What are EPA’s regulations aspects of the petitions that relate to the refrigeration and AC and foam blowing concerning venting, releasing, or refrigeration and AC, and foam blowing sectors. disposal of refrigerant substitutes? sectors; EPA is changing the listing from V. How does EPA regulate substitute Regulations issued under CAA section acceptable to unacceptable for: refrigerants under CAA section 608? • HFC-134a in new centrifugal 608, published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling program chillers, new positive displacement A. What are the statutory requirements for ozone-depleting refrigerants chillers, new household refrigerators concerning venting, release, or disposal recovered during the servicing and and freezers, and rigid PU spray foam; of refrigerants and refrigerant maintenance of refrigeration and AC • R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R- substitutes under CAA section 608? 507A in new centrifugal chillers, new appliances. These regulations are To briefly summarize the primary codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. positive displacement chillers, new requirements of CAA section 608, that In the same 1993 rule, EPA also issued household refrigerators and freezers, section requires, among other things, regulations implementing the section and new cold storage warehouses; that EPA establish regulations governing • R-407A in new cold storage 608(c) prohibition on knowingly the use and disposal of ODS used as venting, releasing, or disposing of class warehouses; refrigerants, such as certain CFCs and • R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, I or class II substances. These HCFCs, during the service, repair, or R-424A, and R-434A in new centrifugal regulations were designed to disposal of appliances and industrial chillers and new positive displacement substantially reduce the use and process refrigeration (IPR). Section chillers; emissions of ozone-depleting 608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for • HFC-227ea in new cold storage refrigerants. any person, in the course of EPA issued rules on March 12, 2004 warehouses, new centrifugal chillers, maintaining, servicing, repairing, or (69 FR 11946) and April 13, 2005 (70 FR and new positive displacement chillers; • HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC- disposing of an appliance (or IPR), to 19273) clarifying how the venting 227ea in rigid PU spray foam; knowingly vent, or otherwise knowingly prohibition in section 608(c) applies to • HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new release or dispose of any class I or class substitutes for CFC and HCFC centrifugal chillers and new positive II substance used as a refrigerant in that refrigerants (e.g., HFCs and PFCs) displacement chillers; and appliance (or IPR) in a manner which during the maintenance, service, repair, • a number of refrigerant blends with permits the ODS to enter the or disposal of appliances. In part, they higher GWPs in certain new environment. provide that no person maintaining, refrigeration and AC equipment. Section 608(c)(1) exempts de minimis servicing, repairing, or disposing of Parts of two other SNAP petitions releases associated with good faith appliances may knowingly vent or previously submitted by the same three attempts to recapture and recycle or otherwise release into the environment organizations are also relevant to this safely dispose of such a substance from any refrigerant or substitute from such this prohibition. EPA, as set forth in its appliances, with the exception of the 23 NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of regulations, interprets releases to meet specified substitutes in the specified Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 the criteria for exempted de minimis end-uses, as provided in 40 CFR (Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted releases if they occur when the 82.154(a). October 6, 2015. recycling and recovery requirements of As explained in an earlier EPA 24 EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify rulemaking concerning refrigerant the status under the Significant New Alternatives specified regulations issued under Policy Program, of certain high-GWP chemicals in sections 608 and 609 are followed (40 substitutes, EPA had not, at the time of various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015. CFR 82.154(a)(2)). that rulemaking, issued regulations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86789

requiring certification of refrigerant VI. What is EPA finalizing in this journal articles, submissions to the recycling/recovery equipment intended action? SNAP program, the regulations and for use with substitutes to date (70 FR EPA is listing certain newly submitted supporting dockets for other EPA 19275; April 13, 2005). However, as alternatives as acceptable, subject to use rulemakings, presentations and reports EPA has noted, the lack of a current conditions, and other newly submitted presented at domestic and international regulatory provision should not be alternatives as unacceptable. EPA is also conferences, and materials from trade considered as an exemption from the modifying current listings from associations and professional venting prohibition for substitutes that acceptable to acceptable, subject to organizations. The materials on which are not expressly exempted in narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable we have relied are in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– § 82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478). for certain alternatives in various end- 0663). Key references are highlighted in The Administrator signed final uses in the refrigeration and AC and foam blowing sectors. In each instance section VIII of this action. regulations to require certification of where EPA is listing a newly submitted Change of Status Dates refrigerant recovery and/or recycling substitute as unacceptable or is The change of status dates are based equipment for use with refrigerants that changing the status of a substitute from upon EPA’s understanding of the are not exempt from the venting acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has availability of alternatives, considering prohibition. For information on the final determined that there are other factors such as commercial availability 608 rule, see the docket for the alternatives that pose lower overall risk and supply of alternatives, time rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– to human health and the environment. required to work through technical 0453). In a few instances, EPA established challenges with using alternatives, and narrowed use limits for certain On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA time required to meet other federal substitutes for specific military or space- exempted from the venting prohibition regulatory requirements with redesigned and aeronautics-related applications in three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as equipment or formulations. As the refrigeration and AC, and foam acceptable, subject to use conditions, in discussed in previous actions, as part of blowing sectors, on the basis that other the following end-uses: and our consideration of the availability of acceptable alternatives would not be R-441A in household refrigerators, alternatives, we consider ‘‘all available available for those specific applications freezers, and combination refrigerators information, including information within broader end-uses, but acceptable provided during the public comment and freezers; and propane in retail food alternatives were expected to become period, and information claimed as refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone available over time. This action also confidential and provided during units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 applies unacceptability determinations meetings, regarding technical challenges (80 FR 19453), EPA exempted from the for foam blowing agents to closed cell that may affect the time at which the venting prohibition four HC refrigerant foam products and products containing alternatives can be used safely and used substitutes listed as acceptable, subject closed cell foam. Additionally, EPA is consistent with other requirements such to use conditions, in the following end- exempting propane as a refrigerant in as testing and code compliance uses: Isobutane and R-441A in retail new self-contained commercial ice obligations’’ (80 FR 42873; July 20, food refrigerators and freezers (stand- machines, in new water coolers, and in 2015). alone units only); propane in household new very low temperature refrigeration refrigerators, freezers, and combination equipment from the venting prohibition Consideration of Costs and Benefits refrigerators and freezers; in very under CAA section 608(c)(2). This Under the SNAP criteria for review in low temperature refrigeration action also clarifies the listing for ® 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of equipment and equipment for non- Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X ), which cost is limited to cost of the substitute mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, was previously listed as both acceptable under review, and that consideration propane, and isobutane in vending and acceptable, subject to use does not include the cost of transition machines; and propane and R-441A in conditions, by removing the listing as when a substitute is found self-contained room air conditioners for acceptable subject to use conditions. unacceptable. EPA requires information The emissions that will be avoided from residential and light commercial AC and on cost and availability of substitutes as the changes of status in this action are heat pumps. Those regulatory part of SNAP submissions to judge how estimated to be up to approximately 6.6 exemptions do not apply to blends of widely a substitute might be used and, Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide HCs with other refrigerants or therefore, what its potential Equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2025 and up containing any amount of any CFC, environmental and health effects might to approximately 11.3 MMTCO2eq in be. The SNAP criteria do not identify HCFC, HFC, or PFC. 25 2030. other cost considerations and thus we In those 2014 and 2015 actions, EPA Change of Listing Status have not historically used cost determined that for the purposes of In determining whether to modify the information independent of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, environmental and health effects to release, or disposal of such HC previous listing decisions for substitutes based on whether other alternatives are determine the acceptability of refrigerant substitutes in the specified substitutes under review—that is, we end-uses does not pose a threat to the available that pose lower risk to human health and the environment, we have never determined a substitute environment, considering both the under review to be unacceptable or inherent characteristics of these considered, among other things: Comments to the proposed rule of April acceptable on the basis of its cost. When substances and the limited quantities 18, 2016, scientific findings, considering a change of status for used in the relevant applications. EPA information provided by the Technology substitutes already listed as acceptable, further concluded that other authorities, and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) the SNAP program has not considered controls, or practices that apply to such that supports the Montreal Protocol, the costs of transition away from HFCs, refrigerant substitutes help to mitigate HFC blends, PFCs, and other environmental risk from the release of 25 EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP alternatives affected by the changes of those HC refrigerant substitutes. Program Status Change Rule. March, 2016. status as part of determining the status

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86790 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

of the substitute or the availability of does not expect this action to have other federal rules, see section VI.A.1.f other alternatives for the same uses. major economic impacts (greater than of the proposed rule (81 FR 22830; April We are not addressing in this $100 million per year) or to have a 18, 2016). rulemaking whether to revise the significant impact on a substantial regulatory criteria to include an number of small entities. b. What is EPA’s final decision? expanded role for the consideration of A. Refrigeration and Stationary AC As proposed, EPA is listing propane costs in SNAP listing decisions. We (R-290) as acceptable, subject to use have simply applied the existing 1. Acceptable Listing of Propane in New conditions, as a refrigerant in new self- regulatory criteria in determining Self-Contained Commercial Ice contained commercial ice machines, in whether to change the listing status of Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low new water coolers, and in new very low the substitutes addressed in this action. Temperature Refrigeration Equipment Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the temperature refrigeration equipment. a. Background costs of the changes of status in this The use conditions include conditions action to provide information to the This section, and other ‘‘background’’ requiring conformity with industry public and to meet various statutory and sections that follow in the rule, provide standards, limits on charge size, and executive order requirements. We have information on the end-uses relevant to requirements for warnings and markings estimated costs for applicable NAICS this decision, available alternatives, and on equipment. The use conditions are codes in a document titled, ‘‘Cost other applicable regulations relevant to detailed in section VI.A.1.b.ii. these end-uses. Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the i. How does propane compare to other Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments, such as refrigerants for these end-uses with used in Refrigeration and Air respect to SNAP criteria? Conditioning, Foams, and Fire hotels, restaurants, and convenience Suppression.’’ 26 Using a seven percent stores to produce ice. Many commercial EPA has listed a number of discount rate, total annualized ice machines are self-contained units, alternatives as acceptable in the compliance costs across the roughly 100 while some have the condenser commercial ice machine, water cooler, affected businesses are estimated to separated from the portion of the and very low temperature refrigeration range from $59.2 million–$71.3 million. machine making the ice and have end-uses. In the proposed rule (81 FR at Using a three percent discount rate, total refrigerant lines running between the 22824; April 18, 2016), EPA provided annualized compliance costs are two. This action applies only to self- information on the environmental and estimated to range from $58.8 million– contained commercial ice machines. health properties of propane and the Water coolers are self-contained units $70.6 million.27 various substitutes in these end-uses. providing chilled water for drinking. In addition, we have analyzed costs Additionally, EPA’s risk assessments for and impacts on small businesses in a They may or may not feature detachable containers of water. propane and a technical support document titled, ‘‘Economic Impact document 31 that provides the Federal Screening Analysis for Regulatory Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to maintain Register citations concerning data on Changes to the Listing Status of High- the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of food—generally, ¥80 VOC, toxicity, flammability) for and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire ° ¥ ° acceptable alternatives in the relevant Suppression.’’ 28 The screening analysis C ( 170 F) or lower. In some cases, very low temperature refrigeration end-uses are available in the docket for finds that the rulemaking can be this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– presumed to have no significant equipment may use a refrigeration 0663). economic impact on a substantial system with two refrigerant loops number of small entities (SISNOSE). containing different refrigerants or with (a) Environmental Impacts Roughly 89 small businesses could be a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration subject to the rulemaking. Total loop coupled with an alternative Propane has an ODP of zero.32 The annualized compliance costs across refrigeration technology (e.g., Stirling most commonly used substitutes in the affected small businesses are estimated cycle). commercial ice machine, water cooler, The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at approximately $11.8–$14.4 million at and very low temperature refrigeration has established energy conservation a seven percent discount rate, or $11.5– end-uses also have an ODP of zero (e.g., standards for automatic commercial ice $14.0 million at a three percent discount R-404A and R-134a). Some less common machines which apply to the self- rate.29 Based upon these analyses, EPA alternatives for these end-uses, such as contained commercial ice machines in R-401A, R-403B, R-414A and other 30 26 ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory this listing. DOE does not have an blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC- Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP energy conservation standard that 142b,33 have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air would apply to water coolers or to very 0.047. Thus, propane has an ODP lower Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. low temperature refrigeration September, 2016. equipment. For further information on 27 In terms of the distribution of the estimated 31 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- total annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and the relationship between this action and Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of air conditioning is about 97–98 percent, foams is Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for about two to three percent and fire suppression is approximately 14 percent possibly incurring costs Certain Substitutes under the Significant New about zero percent. in excess of three percent of annual sales. Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. 28 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening 30 See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 32 We assume that substitutes containing no Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing appliance_standards/standards_test_ chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in procedures.html. ‘‘Automatic commercial ice 33 Under EPA’s phaseout regulations, virgin Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire machines’’ are defined as ‘‘a factory-made assembly HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing Suppression. September, 2016. (not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that—(1) HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to service 29 Of those 89 small businesses, roughly 76 consists of a condensing unit and ice-making existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, percent would be expected to incur compliance section operating as an integrated unit, with means HCFC-142b and blends containing HCFC-22 or costs that are estimated to be less than one percent for making and harvesting ice; and (2) may include HCFC-142b may not be used to manufacture new of annual sales. Roughly 24 percent could incur means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and pre-charged appliances or appliance components or costs in excess of one percent of annual sales with dispensing ice.’’ to charge new appliances assembled onsite.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86791

than or identical to the ODPs of other 404A, with GWPs of about 1,430 and have GWPs ranging from 31 for THR-02 alternatives in these end-uses.34 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table to approximately 3,990 for R-507A.36 The GWP is a means of quantifying 2, the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants For very low temperature refrigeration, the potential integrated climate forcing in commercial ice machines ranges from the GWPs for acceptable substitutes of various GHGs relative to a value of zero for ammonia vapor compression, range from one for CO2 to 14,800 for one for CO2. Propane has a low GWP of ammonia absorption, and the not-in- HFC-23. Propane’s GWP is comparable 35 three. For comparison, some other kind (NIK) Stirling cycle technology to to or significantly lower than those of commonly used acceptable refrigerants approximately 3,990 for R-507A. For other alternatives in these end-uses. in these end-uses are R-134a and R- water coolers, acceptable substitutes

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 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

Propane ...... 3 0 ...... Yes ...... Acceptable, sub- ject to use conditions.

Commercial Ice Machines

Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, 0-3,990 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. 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 B, R-125/R-290 /R-134a/ R- 30–3,610 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 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-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, 0–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. R-421A, R-426A, R-437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A. FOR12A, FOR-12B, IKON B, R-125/R-290 /R-134a /R-600a (55.0/ 30–3,090 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 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-7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R- 1–14,800 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. 170 (ethane), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-507A, R- 508A, R-508B. ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- 2,530–8,500 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 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 in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the blend are VOCs.

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

34 Propane’s ODP is also lower than the ODP of values taken from IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 37 RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, the ozone-depleting substances historically used in 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical these end-uses: CFC-12 (ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP 36 The GWPs of the ODS historically used in these Options Committee. This document is accessible at: = 0.055); R-13B1/halon 1301 (ODP = 10) and R-502 end-uses are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/ (ODP = 0.334). (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/halon 1301; (GWP = 7,140) RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf. 35 Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are 100-year integrated time horizon and R-502 (GWP = 4,660).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86792 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

equipment, and other factors will affect and that all refrigerant used was emitted that there would be a worst-case impact the actual energy efficiency achieved in to the atmosphere. In that extreme of a 0.15 ppb increase in ozone for a operation. Although we cannot know scenario, the model predicted that the single 8-hour average concentration in what energy efficiency will be achieved maximum increase in any single 8-hour the Los Angeles area, which is the area in future products using propane, or any average ground-level ozone with the highest level of ground-level other specific acceptable refrigerant, concentration would be 0.72 parts per ozone in the United States.46 In the both actual equipment and testing billion (ppb) in Los Angeles, which is other cities examined in the analysis, results suggest that equipment the area with the highest level of Houston and Atlanta, impacts were optimized for propane may improve ground-level ozone pollution in the smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb energy efficiency, and is unlikely to United States. Based on this maximum for a single 8-hour average reduce it.38 39 40 Further, testing data, projected increase, EPA determined that concentration, respectively).47 For areas peer-reviewed journal articles and other the incremental VOC emissions from in the analysis that were not violating information provided by the submitters refrigerant emissions would not cause the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the impacts did for propane in these end-uses indicate any area that otherwise would meet the not cause an exceedance of the 2008 that equipment using propane is likely 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it.43 ozone NAAQS. We updated this to require a smaller refrigerant charge, Given the potential sources of analysis for the final rule, extending the have a higher coefficient of uncertainty in the modeling, the analysis to 2040 and considering just performance, and use less energy than conservativeness of the assumptions, those uses of hydrocarbon refrigerants equipment currently being and the finding that the incremental already listed as acceptable, subject to manufactured that uses other VOC emissions from refrigerant use conditions, and the use of propane refrigerants that currently are listed as emissions would not cause any area that in the end-uses in this rule. This acceptable under SNAP in these end- otherwise would meet the 2008 ozone updated analysis found worst-case uses. Also see section VI.A.1.f of the NAAQS to exceed it,44 we believe that impacts for a single 8-hour average proposed rule (81 FR 22830) concerning the use of isobutane consistent with the concentration in the Los Angeles area of the role of the DOE energy conservation use conditions required in EPA’s 0.05 ppb and worst-case impacts of less standards in ensuring that overall regulations will not result in than 0.01 ppb in Houston and Atlanta. energy efficiency of equipment will be significantly greater risk to the Because of the relatively minimal air maintained or improved over time. environment than other alternatives. quality impacts of propane if it is In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA Because propane is less reactive at released to the atmosphere from evaluated potential impacts of propane forming ground-level ozone than commercial ice machines, water coolers, and other HC refrigerants on local air isobutane, we reach the same and very low temperature refrigeration quality. Propane meets the definition of conclusion for propane. VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 In a less conservative analysis of equipment even in a worst-case CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded from potential impacts on ambient ozone scenario, we conclude that propane that definition for the purpose of levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses does not have a significantly greater developing State Implementation Plans that would be more likely to use HC overall impact on human health and the (SIPs) to attain and maintain the refrigerants between now and 2030, environment based on its effects on National Ambient Air Quality Standards including end-uses where HC local air quality than other refrigerants (NAAQS). As described below, EPA refrigerants previously have been listed listed as acceptable in commercial ice estimates that potential emissions of as acceptable and the three end-uses machines, water coolers, and very low HCs, including propane, when used as addressed in this rule. For example, we temperature refrigeration equipment. refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in assumed use of propane in water coolers Ecosystem effects from propane, the refrigeration and AC sector, have and commercial ice machines and in primarily effects on aquatic life, are little impact on local air quality, with other end-uses where EPA has already expected to be small as are the effects the exception of unsaturated HCs such listed propane as acceptable, including of other acceptable substitutes. Propane as propylene.41 room air conditioners and household is highly volatile and typically EPA analyzed various scenarios to and retail food refrigeration equipment. evaporates or partitions to air, rather consider the potential impacts on local We also assumed the use of other HCs than contaminating surface , and air quality if HC refrigerants were used in end-uses where they are already thus propane’s effects on aquatic life are widely.42 The analysis considered both listed as acceptable such as isobutane in expected to be small. Propane will pose worst-case and more realistic scenarios. household and retail food refrigeration no greater risk of aquatic or ecosystem The worst-case scenario assumed that equipment and R-441A in room air effects than those of other alternatives the most reactive HC listed as conditioners and household and retail for these uses. acceptable (isobutane) was used in all food refrigeration equipment. For refrigeration and AC uses even though further information on the specific 46 This less conservative analysis included some isobutane has not been listed acceptable assumptions, see the docket for this use of R-443A in room AC units because that for use in all refrigeration and AC uses, rulemaking.45 Based on this still substitute was under evaluation for that end-use. Elsewhere in this rule, we find R-443A and conservative but more probable propylene unacceptable in residential and light- 38 Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for assessment of refrigerant use, we found commercial AC and heat pumps, including room R-170 and R-290 in Very Low Temperature AC units. The propylene in R-443A, representing 12 Refrigeration. May, 2015. 43 The analysis described here was conducted percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for 39 Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, prior to finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA about 75 percent of the 0.15 ppb increase in ozone September, 2013. EPA SNAP Submittal—Revision has not yet made ozone attainment area in this scenario, while all uses of propane, to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines, designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. representing 83 percent of refrigerant emitted, was Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. 44 The analysis described here was conducted responsible for about 21 percent of the increase of 40 Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R- prior to finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA ozone in this scenario. Thus, only 0.03 ppb of the 290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. has not yet made ozone attainment area 0.15 ppb observed in Los Angeles would be due to 41 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. propane and other acceptable HCs. of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 45 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact 47 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 42 Ibid. Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86793

(b) Flammability below 400 ppm by volume, based on classification 2 may optionally be data used to determine TLV-TWA or designated in the LFL subclass ‘‘2L’’ if Propane is classified as an A3 consistent indices. The refrigerants are they have a maximum burning velocity refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard 34– also assigned a flammability of 10 cm/s or lower when tested at 23.0 2013 and subsequent addenda, classification of 1, 2, or 3. Tests are °C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability indicating that it has low toxicity and conducted in accordance with ASTM classification ‘‘3’’ is given to refrigerants high flammability. ANSI/ASHRAE E681 using a spark ignition source at 60 that, when tested, exhibit flame Standard 34–2013 assigns a safety group °C and 101.3 kPa.48 Figure 1 in ANSI/ classification for each refrigerant which propagation and that either have a heat ASHRAE Standard 15–2013 uses the of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 consists of two alphanumeric characters same safety group but limits its BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/ (e.g., A2 or B1). The capital letter 49 concentration to 3,400 ppm. 3 indicates the toxicity and the numeral The flammability classification ‘‘1’’ is m or lower. Thus, refrigerants with denotes the flammability. ASHRAE given to refrigerants that, when tested, flammability classification ‘‘3’’ are classifies Class A refrigerants as show no flame propagation. The highly flammable while those with refrigerants for which toxicity has not flammability classification ‘‘2’’ is given flammability classification ‘‘2’’ are less been identified at concentrations less to refrigerants that, when tested, exhibit flammable and those with flammability than or equal to 400 parts per million flame propagation, have a heat of classification ‘‘2L’’ are mildly (ppm) by volume, based on data used to combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg flammable. For both toxicity and determine TLV-time weighted average (8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), flammability classifications, refrigerant (TWA) or consistent indices. Class B and have a lower flammability limit blends are designated based on the signifies refrigerants for which there is (LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m3. worst-case of fractionation determined evidence of toxicity at concentrations Refrigerants within flammability for the blend.

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

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 ER01DE16.000 86794 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

equipment containing a flammable potential catastrophic release of the the LFL. We are establishing use refrigerant. Therefore, use conditions entire charge of the substitute in one conditions that focus on ensuring that are necessary to ensure people handling minute under a worst-case scenario. We these risks are addressed for both the such equipment are aware that did not examine exposure to consumers end user and service personnel. OSHA equipment contains a flammable in very low temperature refrigeration, as and building code requirements refrigerant and to ensure safe handling. equipment for this end-use would generally address flammability risks in When used in accordance with the use typically be used in the workplace, such the workplace, and we presume that the conditions required by this rule, and as in laboratories, and not in a home or original equipment manufacturers with equipment specifically designed public space. The analysis was (OEMs), who would be storing large for its use, propane’s flammability undertaken to determine the short term quantities of the refrigerant, are familiar hazard is adequately mitigated and its (30-minute TWA) exposure levels for with and will use proper safety use is not significantly greater than that the substitute, which were then precautions to minimize the risk of of other acceptable substitutes in these compared to the toxicity limit to assess explosion, consistent with those end-uses. the risk to consumers. The analysis requirements. Therefore, we are not found, even under the highly (c) Toxicity establishing use conditions to address conservative assumptions used in the workplace risk, which would be In evaluating potential toxicity consumer exposure modeling, the redundant of existing requirements. We impacts of propane on human health in estimated 30-minute consumer are including recommendations in the these end-uses, EPA considered both exposures to propane are lower than the occupational and consumer risks. In relevant toxicity limits. FURTHER INFORMATION section of the general when evaluating non-cancer Based upon our analysis, workplace SNAP listings that these facilities be toxicity risks of a substitute, we use and consumer exposure to propane equipped with proper ventilation measured exposure concentrations if when used in these end-uses according systems and be properly designed to available, or modeled exposure to the use conditions is not expected to reduce possible ignition sources. See concentrations using conservative exceed relevant exposure limits. Thus, section VI.A.1.b.ii in this action and assumptions appropriate to an end-use, propane does not pose significantly section VI.A.1.b.ii of the proposed rule and compare these exposure levels to greater toxicity risks than other (81 FR 22827) for additional information recommended or required exposure acceptable refrigerants in these end- on the flammability risks posed by limits for a compound that are intended uses. For further information, including propane. Further information on EPA’s to protect against adverse health effects. EPA’s risk screens and risk assessments risk assessments are available in the Where measured or modeled exposure as well as information from the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– levels are below relevant exposure submitters of propane as a substitute OAR–2015–0663). limits for a chemical, we consider refrigerant, see docket EPA–HQ–OAR– We are finalizing the proposed use toxicity risks to be acceptable. Other 2015–0663 and section VI.A.1.b.iii of conditions, summarized in section acceptable substitutes listed for these the proposed rule (81 FR 22827–8). VI.A.1.b.ii.(a)–(e), with one change—we end-uses have been evaluated for are lowering the charge size for water toxicity in this manner, including ii. What are the final use conditions? coolers. In response to public comment ethane for very low temperature To ensure that using propane in and for consistency with the refrigeration, ammonia for commercial commercial ice machines, water coolers, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 399 ice machines, and a number of HFC and very low temperature refrigeration standard, we are finalizing a charge size blends for all three end-uses. equipment will not cause greater risk to To evaluate the toxicity of propane, human health or the environment than of 60 g for water coolers instead of 150 EPA estimated the maximum TWA other alternatives, we have identified g. The use conditions are consistent exposure both for a short-term exposure and are establishing use conditions to with industry standards, limits on scenario, with a 30-minute TWA address flammability and toxicity charge size, and requirements for exposure, and for an 8-hour TWA that concerns. warnings and markings on equipment. would be more typical of occupational Propane’s flammability risks are of (a) For Use in New Equipment Only; exposure for a technician servicing the potential concern because commercial Not for Use as a Retrofit Alternative equipment or a worker disposing of ice machines, water coolers, and very appliances. The modeling results low temperature refrigeration In the specified end-uses in this indicate that both the short-term (30- equipment have traditionally used action, propane is limited to use only in minute) and long-term (8-hour) worker refrigerants that are not flammable. new equipment 50 that has been exposure concentrations would be Propane could pose a significant safety designed and manufactured specifically below the relevant workplace exposure concern for workers and consumers in for use with propane. Propane was not limits. the end-uses addressed in this action if submitted under the SNAP program to A similar analysis of asphyxiation it is not handled correctly. In the be used in retrofitted equipment, and no risks considered whether a worst-case presence of an ignition source (e.g., information was provided on how to release of refrigerant in the same room static electricity spark resulting from mitigate hazards of flammable sizes would result in closing a door, use of a torch during refrigerants when used in equipment concentrations of 12 percent or less. service, or a short circuit in wiring that that was not designed for flammable This analysis found that impacts on controls the motor of a compressor), an refrigerants. Use of propane in oxygen concentrations were minimal, explosion or a fire could occur when the equipment not designed for its use, with oxygen concentrations remaining concentration of refrigerant exceeds its including existing equipment designed at approximately 21 percent. LFL. Propane’s LFL is 21,000 ppm (2.1 for another refrigerant, is a violation of For equipment with which consumers percent). Therefore, to use propane CAA section 612(c) and the might come into contact, such as water safely, it is important to minimize the coolers and commercial ice machines, presence of potential ignition sources 50 This is intended to mean a completely new EPA performed a consumer exposure and to reduce the likelihood that the refrigeration circuit containing a new evaporator, analysis. In this analysis, we examined concentration of propane will exceed condenser and refrigerant tubing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86795

corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 allow for a smoother transition. for color-coded hoses or pipes for CFR part 82, subpart G. Specifically, the international standard propane. EPA is requiring that all such must adequately provide guidelines for refrigerator tubing be colored red (b) Standards use conditions for all equipment types Pantone matching system (PMS) #185 to EPA is requiring that propane be used under SNAP review, including match the red band displayed on the only in equipment that meets all refrigerant charge size limits, minimum container of flammable refrigerants requirements in the relevant room sizes for installation, ventilation under the Air Conditioning, Heating and supplements for flammable refrigerants requirements, and required permanent Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Guideline in certain applicable UL standards for markings on equipment, system parts, ‘‘N’’ 2014, ‘‘2014 Guideline for refrigeration and AC equipment. and servicing equipment. Assignment of Refrigerant Container Specifically, Supplement SA to the 8th 55 (c) Charge Size Colors.’’ This requirement mirrors the edition of UL 563 standard, dated July existing use condition for flammable 31, 2009, applies to self-contained EPA is requiring a charge size not to refrigerants in residential and commercial ice machines using exceed 150 g in each refrigerant circuit commercial refrigerator-freezers, 51 flammable refrigerants. Supplement for self-contained commercial ice vending machines, very low SB to the 7th edition of UL 399, dated machines and very low temperature temperature refrigeration equipment, August 22, 2008, applies to water refrigeration equipment and not to non-mechanical heat transfer 52 coolers using flammable refrigerants. exceed 60 g in each refrigerant circuit equipment, and room air conditioners 54 Very low temperature refrigeration for water coolers. These are the charge (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR equipment is sufficiently similar to sizes that reflect the UL 563, UL 399, 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA wants to stand-alone commercial refrigerators and UL 471 standards. UL Standards ensure that there is adequate notice that that an appropriate standard is 563 (ice machines) and 471 (commercial a flammable refrigerant is being used Supplement SB to the 10th edition of stand-alone refrigeration equipment) 53 within a particular piece of equipment UL 471, dated November 24, 2010. limit the amount of refrigerant leaked to or appliance. One way to mark hoses UL has tested equipment for 150 g (5.29 oz). UL 399 (water coolers) and pipes is to add a colored plastic flammability risk in household and limits the amount of refrigerant leaked sleeve or cap to the service tube rather retail food refrigeration and in to 60 g (2.12 oz) discussed in paragraph than painting or dying the hoses or commercial freezers for very low (b) of this section, the UL standards are pipes. This sleeve would be of the same temperature refrigeration. Further, UL applicable to and recognized by the U.S. red color (PMS #185) and could also be has developed acceptable safety market and are developed by a boldly marked with the flame graphic standards including requirements for consensus of experts. We note that the required by the UL standards to indicate construction, markings, and charge size limit for propane of 150 g in the refrigerant was flammable. performance tests concerning refrigerant the UL standards for ice machines and leakage, ignition of switching EPA is particularly concerned with commercial stand-alone commercial ensuring adequate and proper components, surface temperature of refrigeration equipment is in line with parts, and component strength after notification for servicing and disposal of the IEC 60335–2–89 standard addressing appliances containing flammable being scratched. These standards were commercial ice-machines and other developed in an open and consensus- refrigerants. The use of color-coded commercial refrigeration equipment, hoses, as well as the use of warning based approach, with the assistance of which also has a charge size limit of 150 experts in the AC and refrigeration labels discussed in the next paragraph, g. These limits will reduce the risk to would be consistent with other general industry as well as experts involved in workers and consumers since under assessing the safety of products. While industry practices. This approach is scenarios we analyzed, a leak of consistent with the approach adopted in similar standards exist from other refrigerant of these sizes did not result bodies such as the International our previous rules on flammable in concentrations of the refrigerant that refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), we met or exceeded the LFL. are relying on UL standards as those are 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). the standards applicable to and (d) Color-Coded Hoses and Piping (e) Labeling recognized by the U.S. market. This EPA is requiring that equipment EPA is requiring labeling of self- approach is the same as that adopted in designed for use with propane must our previous rules on flammable contained commercial ice machines, have distinguishing color-coded hoses water coolers, and very low temperature refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, and piping to indicate use of a 2011; 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015). EPA refrigeration equipment. EPA is flammable refrigerant. This will help requiring that the warning labels on the acknowledges that international technicians immediately identify the equipment contain letters at least 1⁄4 standards exist and believes that UL use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby inch high and that they be permanently will likely harmonize with these reducing the risk of using sparking affixed to the equipment. Warning label standards in the future. If UL plans to equipment or otherwise having an language requirements are as follows: update ANSI/UL399 to harmonize with ignition source nearby. The AC and (1) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or IEC–60335–2–89, then referencing an refrigeration industry currently uses Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. IEC standard in future actions may distinguishing colors as means to Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To identify different refrigerants. Likewise, 51 Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture UL, 2009. Standard 563—Standard for Ice distinguishing coloring has been used Makers. A summary of this document is accessible Refrigerant Tubing.’’ This marking must elsewhere to indicate an unusual and at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=563. be provided on or near any evaporators 52 potentially dangerous situation, for UL, 2008. Standard 399—Standard for that can be contacted by the consumer. Drinking-Water Coolers. A summary of this example in the use of orange insulated document is accessible at: http:// wires in hybrid electric vehicles. ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=399_7. 55 AHRI, 2014. Guideline N–2014 for Assignment 53 UL, 2010. Standard 471—Standard for Currently, no industry standard exists of Refrigerant Container Colors. This document is Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. A summary accessible online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_ of this document is accessible at: http:// 54 To place this in context, a 150 g charge is about Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI_Guideline_N_ ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471_10. five times the charge in a disposable lighter (30 g). 2014.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86796 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

(2) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or procedures for using flammable iv. When will the listing apply? Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. refrigerants safely. Releases of large EPA is establishing a listing date as of To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service quantities of flammable refrigerants January 3, 2017, the same as the Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant during servicing and manufacturing, effective date of this regulation, to allow Tubing.’’ This marking must be located especially in enclosed, poorly ventilated for the safe use of this substitute at the near the machine compartment. spaces or in areas where large amounts earliest opportunity. (3) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or of refrigerant are stored, could cause an Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. explosion if there is an ignition source c. How is EPA responding to comments? Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s Guide nearby. For these reasons, technicians EPA received comments from Before Attempting To Service This should be properly trained to handle organizations with various interests in Product. All Safety Precautions Must be flammable refrigerant when commercial refrigeration regarding the Followed.’’ This marking must be maintaining, servicing, repairing, or proposed listing of propane as located near the machine compartment. disposing of water coolers, commercial acceptable, subject to use conditions, in (4) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or ice machines, and very low temperature newly manufactured self-contained Explosion. Dispose of Properly In freezers. In addition, EPA recommends commercial ice machines, water coolers, Accordance With Federal or Local that if propane is vented, released, or and very low temperature refrigeration Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant disposed of (rather than recovered) for equipment. Most commenters supported Used.’’ This marking must be provided these specified end-uses, the release the proposed listing decision and on the exterior of the refrigeration should be in a well-ventilated area, such effective date of 30 days after equipment. as outside of a building. Ensuring publication of the rule in the Federal (5) CAUTION—Risk of Fire or proper ventilation and avoiding ignition Register. Other commenters addressed Explosion Due To Puncture Of sources are recommended practices, the environmental impacts of the Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling whether venting or recovering a proposed listing of propane, the Instructions Carefully. Flammable flammable refrigerant. proposed use conditions, training for Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must The Australian Institute of technicians handling flammable be provided near all exposed refrigerant Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and refrigerants, and industry codes and tubing. Heating (AIRAH) provides useful standards. The warning label language is similar Commenters included Filtrine to or exactly the same as that required guidance on safety precautions technicians can follow when servicing Manufacturing Company (Filtrine), a in UL standards: For commercial ice manufacturer of drinking fountains, machines in UL 563 in section SB6.1, equipment containing flammable refrigerants or when venting refrigerant. water coolers, and drinking water for water coolers in UL 399 in section filtration equipment; the Flexible SA6.1, and for commercial refrigerators One of those practices is to connect a hose to the appliance to allow for Packaging Association (FPA); and freezers, including very low 56 Chemours, a chemical producer; the temperature freezers, in UL 471 in venting the refrigerant outside. This document is included in the docket for National Environmental Development section SB6.1. Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/ It would be difficult to see warning this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663). We are aware that at least two CAP), an organization representing labels with the minimum lettering manufacturers of a variety of height requirement of 1⁄8 inch in these organizations in the United States, Refrigeration Service Engineers Society refrigeration and AC equipment among UL standards. Therefore, as in the others; and UL, a safety consulting and requirements in our previous HC (RSES) and the ESCO Institute, have developed technician training programs certification company. refrigerants rules for residential and We have grouped comments together in collaboration with refrigeration commercial refrigerator-freezers, and responded to the issues raised by equipment manufacturers and users that vending machines, very low the comments in the sections that address safe use of flammable temperature refrigeration equipment, follow, or in a separate Response to refrigerant substitutes. In addition, EPA non-mechanical heat transfer Comments document which is included has reviewed several training programs equipment, and room air conditioners in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR provided as part of SNAP submissions OAR–2015–0663). 19453, April 10, 2015), EPA is requiring from persons interested in flammable the minimum height for lettering must refrigerant substitutes. The Agency i. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed be 1⁄4 inch as opposed to 1⁄8 inch. This intends to update the test bank for Comment: Filtrine supported the will make it easier for technicians, technician certification under CAA listing of propane in water coolers. consumers, retail storeowners, and first section 608, and will consider including Filtrine noted that water cooler units responders to view the warning labels. additional questions on flammable using propane perform as efficiently or refrigerants. By adding such questions more efficiently than other commonly iii. What recommendations does EPA to the test bank, EPA would supplement used HFC refrigerants, such as R-134a. have for the safe use of propane? but not replace technician training Response: EPA appreciates the In addition to establishing regulatory programs currently provided by non- comments supporting the decision to use conditions, which are binding on government entities. EPA intends to list propane as acceptable, subject to use users of this substitute, EPA is also seek additional information and conditions, in commercial ice machines, making recommendations for the use of guidance on how best to incorporate water coolers, and very low temperature this substitute. EPA is recommending this content through a separate process refrigeration equipment. EPA agrees that that only technicians specifically outside the scope of this final rule. HCs are already being safely and trained in handling flammable successfully used in such types of refrigerant dispose of or service 56 AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of equipment around the world. New refrigeration and AC equipment Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating. Safety designs, along with components and Guide: Flammable Refrigerants. 2013. This containing these substances. Trained document is accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ technology will help optimize the technicians should know how to ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681-e- performance of these systems, thus minimize the risk of fire and the FlammableRefrigerantsGuideAIRAH.pdf. improving their efficiency.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86797

ii. SNAP Review Criteria local and tribal air permitting ground-level ozone concentrations are Comment: FPA commented on the authorities which will require so low that they are difficult to separate safety concerns regarding the use of a immediate planning (and, potentially, from the impact of all other emissions. flammable VOC in the three end-uses permitting) problems with the potential Given the conservativeness of the and expressed the need for technician to snowball with each proposed new assumptions, the potential sources of certification requirements for the use of and existing use for which propane is uncertainty in the modeling, and the propane in these equipment. FPA is added. FPA also claims that use of small magnitude of these modeled concerned that the flammability of propane could interfere with NAAQS increases, we consider it highly likely propane in the workplace will pose both attainment. that state and local agencies will be able worker safety risks as well as potential Response: EPA disagrees with the to meet air quality goals without environmental hazards. FPA suggested commenter that under worst-case extensive or repeated new planning. that EPA further assess the safety and scenarios, the use of propane in new iii. Use Conditions refrigeration and cooling equipment health risks of using propane in new Comment: UL suggested that EPA could create an issue for local air uses, and also in existing uses. appears to be proposing changes that are pollution control authorities in severe Response: EPA evaluated the outside of, but will have a direct impact and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. flammability risks of propane in these on, industry voluntary consensus The worst-case scenario modeled by three end-uses in the risk screens standards such as those published by included in the docket for this EPA was based on use of isobutane in UL. They asserted that the proposed rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– all refrigeration equipment, even though rule contrasts with the requirements 0663). EPA’s evaluations followed the its use has not been approved in all previously developed and standard approach for evaluating health refrigeration equipment. Isobutane is a recommended by the Joint Task Group and environmental risks that the SNAP more reactive VOC than is propane. that UL tasked with developing a program has used over its 20-year While that worst-case scenario did common technical basis for addressing history. The results found leaks of indicate an increase up to 0.72 ppb in the safety of flammable refrigerants in propane in commercial ice machines, Los Angeles area, EPA determined that various UL standards. UL recommended water coolers, and very low temperature it did not accurately depict the risk of that EPA work within the framework of refrigeration equipment resulted in the use of propane in a limited subset the established voluntary consensus concentrations far below the LFL of of refrigeration equipment. Therefore, standards process for revising and 21,000 ppm, showing a lack of EPA evaluated a scenario where updating safety standards for the flammability risk when charge sizes at propane and three other HC refrigerants refrigeration and AC sector. or below those established in the use were used in a number of end-uses Response: With one exception, the conditions are used. Regarding where industry submitters had proposed use conditions established for propane technician certification requirements for their use, including those in this rule; in in the three end-uses are consistent with the handling of flammable refrigerants, end-uses where EPA had already listed the UL standards. The one use condition EPA notes that in recent years, training them as acceptable, subject to use that differs is the condition requiring a programs on flammable refrigerants condition; or in industries where a UL larger print size for the warning labels. have been developed and are currently standard might allow for their use in the This approach is consistent with the use available in the United States. The future. This scenario considers most conditions EPA has established for use Agency intends to update the test bank end-uses that EPA is likely to address in of flammable refrigerants in a variety of for technician certification under CAA the next few years. In this scenario, we refrigeration end uses. EPA believes it is section 608 as we have done previously, found the worst-case change in ground- necessary to require a larger print size and will consider including additional level ozone concentration was 0.15 ppb because it would be difficult to see questions on flammable refrigerants. By in 2030 (ICF, 2014a) and 0.44 ppb in warning labels with the minimum adding such questions to the test bank, 2040 (ICF, 2016l). EPA also examined a lettering height requirement of 1⁄8 inch EPA would supplement but would not scenario that considered only the HC in the UL standards. To the extent replace technician training programs refrigerants being listed as acceptable, practicable, EPA attempts to rely upon currently provided by non-government subject to use conditions, in this action the established voluntary consensus entities. EPA will seek additional or previously listed as acceptable, standards process. information and guidance on how best subject to use conditions. This analysis Comment: UL noted that EPA to incorporate this content through a found worst-case impacts of 0.05 ppb in misunderstood the charge limit size in separate process outside the scope of Los Angeles and less than 0.01 ppb in the Standard for Safety for Drinking this final rule. Houston or in Atlanta in 2040. This Water Coolers, ANSI/UL 399, covering Comment: NEDA/CAP commented modeling contained conservative drinking water coolers using propane as that propane is a VOC and that under assumptions, such as the assumption a refrigerant. In accordance with ANSI/ worst-case scenarios, the use of propane that all refrigerant would be released to UL 399, Supplement SB, Paragraph in new refrigeration and cooling the environment and the assumption SB3.2(b), the charge limit is 2.0 oz. (60 equipment could create an issue for that no refrigerants other than g) for refrigerants having an ASHRAE local air pollution control authorities in hydrocarbons would be used in these Class 3 flammability classification. UL severe and extreme ozone end-uses. When modeling decades into commented that the proposed rule nonattainment areas. The commenter the future, there are many sources of specified that the charge limit was 150g noted that any VOC (with any reactivity) uncertainty that are likely greater in (5.29 oz). must be reported to state/local/tribal magnitude than the modeled increase in Response: EPA agrees with the and federal CAA regulators in biennial ozone concentrations (e.g., changes in commenter that the charge size in the emissions inventories and annual the market, impacts on cloud cover due proposed rule for drinking water coolers permit reports under CAA Titles I and to climate change). In this analysis that was not consistent with the charge limit V, respectively. NEDA/CAP suggested corresponds to the end-uses listed in size in the Standard for Safety for that EPA’s proposal will trigger a this rule and previous acceptable Drinking Water Coolers, ANSI/UL 399. domino effect that will impact state/ listings, the modeled incremental In that standard the charge size limit is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86798 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

currently set to 60 g. Based upon EPA’s requirement in Clause 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ Response: Regarding training needs risk screen prepared for the proposed ASHRAE 15 may make it difficult for ice due to the handling of flammable rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663–0022), machines and drinking water cooler refrigerants, EPA agrees with the a worst-case release of an entire charge manufacturers to transition to propane commenter on the importance of such of 150 g of propane could result in as a refrigerant. technician training, but does not agree exceeding the LFL in a small room, as Response: Our listing of propane as that the training needs to be mandated. in a small residential kitchen, while acceptable, subject to use conditions, in The refrigeration industry has been release of a charge of 60 g or propane, self-contained ice machines and proactive in assuring that technicians as per the UL standard, would not result drinking water coolers does not negate are properly trained and, in recent in exceeding the LFL. In that risk the need to comply with other years, a number of training programs on screen, we analyzed larger charge sizes requirements. Thus, other requirements flammable refrigerants have been of up to 150 g only in the context of use might prevent individual end users from developed and are currently available in in spaces such as commercial kitchens choosing equipment that uses propane. the United States that cover the topics that are likely to be larger and have EPA understands that the ANSI/ suggested by the commenters. Also, better ventilation than in a home; ASHRAE 15–2013 is currently being millions of similar appliances around however, EPA cannot guarantee that reviewed and thus it is possible that in the world have been using HCs over equipment with larger charge sizes the future additional refrigerant decades with few reported incidents, would be used in larger spaces, and 60 classifications may be permitted in the even with charge sizes of 150 g in some g is protective for all spaces in which areas UL noted as currently limited to cases. The charge limit of 150 g for self- this type of equipment may be used. A1 or B1 (nonflammable) refrigerants. contained commercial ice machines and EPA’s intention was to reference the Industry organizations and the U.S. very low temperature refrigeration charge limit in ANSI/UL 399 and EPA government are performing additional equipment is the same as the charge is finalizing a charge limit of 60 g for research on flammable refrigerants with limit EPA previously set for propane, water coolers consistent with ANSI/UL a goal of providing the results to inform isobutane, and R-441A in retail food 399. and revise ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 15– refrigeration-stand-alone units and Comment: UL noted that EPA 2013 and other standards as soon as vending machines and for ethane in proposed that a ‘‘colored plastic sleeve possible, subject to ANSI’s consensus very low temperature refrigeration or cap’’ be secured to the service tube. process.57 For more information on equipment and the charge limit of 60 g The sleeve would be boldly marked ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 and for water coolers is close to the 57 g with a graphic to indicate that the the difference between flammability charge limit EPA requires for propane, refrigeration circuit is flammable. UL classes of refrigerants, see section isobutane, and R-441A in household suggested that the Agency provide more VI.A.3.a. refrigerators and freezers. Concerning information describing the securement Comment: Chemours supported the venting prohibitions, see section means of the sleeve or cap to the service listing of propane as acceptable, subject VI.A.2.c. Concerning Chemours’ tube so that it will not likely be removed to use conditions, for commercial ice suggestion to prohibit topping off (or broken off) for other than a servicing machines, water coolers, and very low systems with refrigerants different from operation. Additionally, they suggested temperature refrigeration equipment the original refrigerant, we proposed EPA provide a more thorough provided safe handling practices for that propane may only be used in new description of the flammable refrigerant flammable refrigerants are incorporated equipment designed for use with that ‘‘graphic’’ that is required to be located into those use conditions, including, but refrigerant; we did not propose its use on the sleeve or cap is necessary. not limited to technician training, as a retrofit refrigerant. Thus, the use Response: The discussion of a venting prohibitions, and a prohibition condition prohibits its use to ‘‘top off’’ ‘‘colored plastic sleeve or cap’’ was not of topping off systems with refrigerants a use condition, but rather an additional a system designed for a different different from the original refrigerant. refrigerant. If the commenter’s concern suggestion on how the use condition for NEDA/CAP also commented on the colored markings on tubing could be is that technicians may add a different importance of technician training refrigerant on top of propane already implemented. An example of a sleeve requirements and certifications for would be a loop of plastic that present in equipment designed for technicians that service propane-filled completely wraps around the tube or propane, we agree that ‘‘topping off’’ equipment before finalizing the hose at any service port and other parts with a different refrigerant is proposed listing. They stated that of the system where service puncturing inappropriate for any refrigerant. The although other flammable refrigerant or other actions creating an opening SNAP regulations for this end-use do blends have been approved since 2014, from the refrigerant circuit to the not currently address this issue; we will EPA proposed to require propane in atmosphere might be expected. The consider whether to propose such a larger volumes. They stated that as EPA flammable refrigerant graphic referred to revision in a future rulemaking, and not moves toward allowing use of propane is the flame graphic already required by just for propane. in larger new equipment, the technician UL standards. requirements for inspecting this 2. Exemption for Propane From the Comment: UL noted that Clause Venting Prohibition Under CAA Section 7.5.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 15–2013 does equipment, leak repair and prevention, and recharging or emptying equipment 608 for Specific End-Uses in the New not permit refrigerated products using SNAP Listing refrigerants other than those having a properly must be in place. Similarly, flammability classification of A1 or B1 FPA suggested that EPA address a. Background (i.e., nonflammable refrigerants) to be technician training requirements for Under section 608(c) of the CAA, it is installed in public corridors and propane before finalizing the proposed unlawful for any person, in the course lobbies. Many ice machines and listing. of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or drinking water coolers are currently disposing of an appliance to knowingly 57 AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to Fund installed in the hallways and lobbies of Flammable Refrigerant Research. http:// vent or otherwise knowingly release any hotels and other commercial www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping- ODS or substitute refrigerant into the establishments. This installation Releases.aspx?A=1170. June 2, 2016. environment. The Administrator may

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86799

exempt refrigerant substitutes from this i. Inherent Characteristics of Propane the end-use. Because propane is not general prohibition if she or he EPA evaluated the potential listed as acceptable for use in all determines under section 608(c)(2) that environmental impacts of releasing into refrigerant uses, the total amount of venting, releasing, or disposing of such the environment propane in water propane that could be emitted in the substance does not pose a threat to the coolers, self-contained commercial ice end-uses evaluated is estimated at environment. machines, and very low temperature roughly ten percent of total refrigerant For purposes of CAA section refrigeration equipment. In particular, emissions, or less than 16,000 metric 59 608(c)(2), EPA considers two factors in we assessed the potential impact of the tons annually. Further, there are other determining whether or not venting, release of propane on local air quality substitute refrigerants that are not VOC release, or disposal of a refrigerant and its ability to decompose in the that may also be used in these end-uses, substitute during the maintenance, atmosphere, its ODP, its GWP, and its so our analysis assuming complete servicing, repairing, or disposal of potential impacts on ecosystems. EPA market penetration of HCs is appliances poses a threat to the also considered propane’s flammability conservative. environment. See 69 FR 11948, March and toxicity risks from the end-uses In light of its evaluation of potential 12, 2004; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; addressed in this rule. environmental impacts, EPA concludes and 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015. First, As discussed previously, propane has that propane in the end-uses for which EPA analyzes the threat to the an ODP of zero and a GWP of three and it is listed under SNAP as acceptable, environment due to inherent its effects on aquatic life are expected to subject to use conditions, in this action characteristics of the refrigerant be small. As to potential effects on local is not expected to pose a threat to the substitute, such as GWP. Second, EPA air quality, propane meets the definition environment on the basis of the inherent determines whether and to what extent of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 characteristics of this substance and the venting, release, or disposal actually CFR 51.100(s)) and is not excluded from limited quantities used in the relevant takes place during the maintenance, that definition for the purpose of end-uses. In this regard, EPA finds servicing, repairing, or disposing of developing SIPs to attain and maintain particularly noteworthy that even appliances, and to what extent such the NAAQS. Based on the analysis and assuming 100 percent market actions are controlled by other modeling results described in section penetration of propane and the other authorities, regulations, or practices. To VI.A.1.b.i, EPA concludes that the acceptable HCs in the end-uses where the extent that it determines such release of propane from the end-uses in they are listed as acceptable, subject to releases are adequately controlled by this action, in addition to the HCs use conditions, which is a conservative other authorities, EPA generally defers previously listed as acceptable, subject assumption, the highest impact for a to those authorities. to use conditions, for their specific end- single 8-hour average ozone concentration based on this analysis b. What is EPA’s final decision? uses, is expected to have little impact on local air quality. In this regard, EPA would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles and EPA has reviewed the potential finds particularly noteworthy that even less than 0.01 ppb in Houston and environmental impacts of propane in 60 assuming 100 percent market Atlanta. the three specific end-uses in this penetration of propane and the other action, as well as the authorities, ii. Limits and Controls Under Other acceptable HCs in the acceptable end- controls, and practices in place for that Authorities, Regulations, or Practices uses, which is a conservative substitute. EPA also considered the EPA expects that existing authorities, assumption, the highest impact for a public comments on the proposal for controls, and/or practices will mitigate single 8-hour average ozone this action. Based on this review, EPA environmental risk from the release of concentration based on this analysis concludes that propane in these end- propane. Analyses performed for both would be 0.05 ppb in Los Angeles uses and subject to these use conditions this rule and prior rules (59 FR 13044, compared to both the 2008 ozone are not expected to pose a threat to the March 17, 1994; 76 FR 78832, December NAAQS at 75 ppb and the new, more environment based on the inherent 20, 2011; 79 FR 29682, May 23, 2014; stringent NAAQS at 70 ppb. characteristics of these substances and In addition, when examining all HC and 80 FR 19453, April 10, 2015) the limited quantities used in the substitute refrigerants in those uses for indicate that existing regulatory relevant applications. EPA additionally which UL currently has standards in requirements and industry practices concludes that existing authorities, place, for which the SNAP program has limit and control the emission of controls, or practices help mitigate already listed the uses as acceptable, propane, or other hydrocarbons, when environmental risk from the release of subject to use conditions, or for which used as a refrigerant in end-uses similar propane in these end-uses and subject to the SNAP program is reviewing a to this action. EPA notes that other these use conditions. submission, including those in this applicable environmental regulatory In light of these conclusions and those action, we found that even if all the HC requirements still apply and are not described or identified above in this refrigerant substitutes in appliances in affected by the determination made in section, EPA is determining that based end-uses listed acceptable, subject to this action. This conclusion is relevant on current evidence and risk analyses, use conditions in this action and listed to the second factor mentioned above in the overall determination of whether the venting, release, or disposal of as acceptable in previous rules were to venting, release, or disposal of a propane in these end-uses during the be emitted, there would be a worst-case refrigerant substitute poses a threat to maintenance, servicing, repairing, or impact of less than 0.15 ppb for ground- the environment. disposing of the relevant appliances level ozone in the Los Angeles area.58 does not pose a threat to the Propane and other HCs being The use conditions established in the recovered, vented, released, or environment. SNAP listings limit the total amount of EPA is therefore exempting from the otherwise disposed of from commercial propane in each refrigerant circuit to 60 venting prohibition at 40 CFR g or less or 150 g or less, depending on 82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses 59 Ibid. for which propane is being listed as 60 ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment 58 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants acceptable, subject to use conditions, of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. September, under the SNAP program. Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86800 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

and industrial appliances are likely to Propane has an LFL of 2.1 percent. In the SNAP listing of propane in be hazardous waste under RCRA (see 40 addition, like most refrigerants, HCs at commercial ice machines, water coolers, CFR parts 261 through 270). As high concentrations can displace oxygen and very low temperature refrigeration discussed in the final rules addressing and cause asphyxiation. equipment. To address flammability risks, this the venting of ethane, isobutane, e. How is EPA responding to comments? propane, and R-441A as refrigerant action establishes required use substitutes in certain end-uses, conditions and provides voluntary EPA received comments from incidental releases may occur during the recommendations for its safe use (see organizations and individuals with maintenance, service, and repair of section VI.A.1.b.iii). This SNAP listing various interests in the refrigeration appliances subject to CAA section 608. limits the amount of propane in the industry on the proposal to exempt Such incidental releases would not be refrigerant loop to 150 g in self- propane in water coolers, commercial subject to RCRA requirements for the contained commercial ice machines and ice machines, and very low temperature disposal of hazardous waste, as such in very low temperature refrigeration freezers from the venting prohibition releases would not constitute disposal equipment and 60 g in water coolers. under section 608. Commenters of the refrigerant charge as a solid waste, These charge size limits also reflect the included the Alliance for Responsible per se. Disposal or venting of propane UL 563, UL 399, and UL 471 industry Atmospheric Policy (the Alliance), an from household appliances used in the standards, as discussed in the previous industry organization; Chemours and home, such as a water cooler, is also section. These use conditions mean that Honeywell, two chemical producers; generally not considered disposal of a any potential propane emissions from Hudson Technologies Company hazardous waste under the existing any individual appliance will therefore (Hudson), a refrigerant reclaimer; RCRA regulations and could be vented be small. HC emissions from the three NEDA/CAP, an organization under the household hazardous waste specific end-uses in this rule would be representing manufacturers of a variety exemption, assuming other state or local significantly smaller than those of refrigeration and AC equipment; and requirements do not prohibit venting. emanating from IPR systems, which are an anonymous citizen. We have grouped comments together See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, for controlled by OSHA for safety reasons. and responded to the issues raised by commercial and industrial appliances Furthermore, it is the Agency’s the comments in the sections that such as self-contained commercial ice understanding that flammability risks follow, or in a separate Response to machines, very low temperature and occupational exposures to HCs are Comments document which is included refrigeration equipment, or water adequately regulated by OSHA and in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– coolers used in an industrial or office building and fire codes at a local and OAR–2015–0663). setting, it is likely that propane and national level. The release and/or disposal of Comment: Honeywell commented other flammable HC refrigerant propane is also controlled by authorities that it does not object to the proposal to substitutes would be classified as established by OSHA and NIOSH exempt propane from the venting hazardous waste and disposal of guidelines, various industry standards, prohibition. However, Honeywell urged propane from such appliances would and state and local building codes. To EPA to consider exempting HFOs in need to be managed as hazardous waste the extent that release during certain end-uses (HFO-1234yf in MVAC under the RCRA regulations (40 CFR maintaining, repairing, servicing, or systems; HFO-1234ze(E) in centrifugal, parts 261 through 270), unless it is disposing of appliances is controlled by reciprocating, screw, and scroll chillers; subject to a limited exception in those regulations and standards of other and HFO-1233zd(E) in centrifugal regulations if the ignitable refrigerant is authorities, these practices and controls chillers) based on their zero ODP, low- to be recycled. Ignitable refrigerant that for the use of propane are sufficiently GWP, and low-VOC reactivity. has been used and has become protective. These practices and controls Response: EPA interprets this contaminated through use would fit the mitigate the risk to the environment that comment as support for exempting definition of a spent material under may be posed by the venting, release, or propane in the three end-uses described RCRA (40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)) if it must be disposal of propane during the in this rule from the venting reclaimed prior to its reuse. Spent maintaining, servicing, repairing, or prohibition. With regard to exempting materials that are reclaimed are solid disposing of self-contained commercial certain HFOs in certain end-uses, the wastes per section 261.2(c). However, if ice machines, very low temperature Agency takes this comment under the hydrocarbon refrigerant is recovered refrigeration equipment, and water advisement and may consider at some for direct reuse (i.e., no reclamation), it coolers. later date analyzing whether the release would not be classified as a solid or a EPA is aware of equipment that can of these refrigerants poses a threat to the hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.2(e)). In be used to recover HC refrigerants. To environment when vented, released, or most cases, recycling of these materials the extent that propane is recovered disposed of, but has not done so for this would require cleaning (i.e., rather than vented in specific end-uses rulemaking and thus is not taking final reclamation) before they are reused. and equipment, EPA recommends the action on the commenter’s suggested As discussed in section VI.A.1.b.ii of use of recovery equipment designed exemption. this action and sections VI.A.1.b.ii and specifically for flammable refrigerants in Comment: The Alliance, Hudson, VI.A.1.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR accordance with applicable safe Chemours, and Arkema commented that 22827; April 18, 2016), EPA’s SNAP handling practices. See section EPA should not exempt propane from program evaluated the flammability and VI.A.1.b.iii for further discussion. the venting prohibition. A primary toxicity risks from propane in the end- concern of the Alliance and Hudson uses in this rule. Propane is classified as d. When does the exemption from the Technologies is that refrigerants should an A3 refrigerant by ASHRAE Standard venting prohibition apply? be properly managed. The Alliance was 34–2013 and subsequent addenda, In the provision establishing the concerned that separate servicing indicating that it has low toxicity and exemption from the venting prohibition, practices for propane could cause high flammability (for a further EPA is also establishing that the confusion and lead to inadvertent discussion on ASHRAE safety exemption will apply as of January 3, venting of HFCs. The Alliance requested categories, see section VI.A.1.b.i.(b). 2017, the same as the effective date of that EPA explain why propane should

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86801

be treated differently from all other HC refrigerants which may be vented, venting prohibition for propane requires fluids. Hudson commented that the from HFCs or other refrigerants that may ongoing consideration and examination, intentional venting of any product to the not. particularly as applications for atmosphere is poor environmental Comment: Hudson commented that flammable refrigerants are expanded policy, poor service practice and poor EPA has been inconsistent in relying on and charge sizes increase. product stewardship and was concerned the lack of recovery equipment designed Response: EPA analyzes individual that exempting propane perpetuates the for recovering HCs as a rationale for refrigerant substitutes, typically in destructive practice of increasing new exempting flammable refrigerants. discrete end-uses, to determine whether production to replace vented refrigerant. Despite past concern about the lack of the venting, releasing, or disposal of Arkema stated that they believe that such equipment, EPA has not exempted those substances in those end-uses will EPA’s 608 regulations foster HFC-32 or HFO-1234yf, both flammable pose a threat to the environment. The sustainability and good product refrigerants, from the venting exemption that EPA is establishing stewardship, aside from reducing risk prohibition. today applies only to propane and only from SNAP substances. They indicated, Response: The Agency has discretion in three discrete end-uses that are however, that exemptions from the to determine whether to establish an subject to use conditions, including venting prohibition for propane or other exemption from the venting prohibition restrictions on charge size. Before HCs can foster only waste and under CAA section 608(c)(2). To make establishing an exemption for propane consumption. that determination, the Agency analyzes in any other end-uses, EPA would Response: EPA agrees that all individual refrigerant substitutes, analyze whether the venting, release, or refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes typically in discrete end-uses, to disposal of propane in that end-use should be properly managed. However, determine whether the venting, would pose a threat to the environment. EPA disagrees that proper management releasing, or disposal of that refrigerant Comment: An anonymous commenter necessarily includes recovery in all substitute from those end-uses will pose noted that due to inconsistencies among cases. The refrigerant management a threat to the environment. For this overlapping regulations, there is practices in subpart F, including rulemaking, EPA has analyzed the confusion in the regulated community recovery, were designed with the potential environmental threats from regarding releases of refrigerants which properties of fluorinated refrigerants in venting, releasing, or disposing propane are hazardous wastes but are exempt mind. Requiring the recovery of from three end-uses. EPA has provided from the prohibition on venting. The refrigerants like water or would its justification for allowing the venting commenter further notes that this issue provide no environmental benefit. For of propane from these three end-uses in is not addressed within the regulation ammonia or chlorine, other regulations this action. EPA did not propose to itself, which is the information source address the risks related to those exempt HFOs, such as HFO-1234yf, or most of the regulated community will specific compounds (for example, HFC-32 from the venting prohibition in reference routinely in the future. The OSHA regulations that address risk to this action and thus did not analyze commenter provided sample language to technician safety). Based on the analysis whether the venting, release, or disposal be added to 82.154(a) to clarify that the discussed previously, EPA has of those substances would pose a threat exemption from the prohibition on determined that venting, releasing, or to the environment for this rule. Though venting provided in 40 CFR part 82, disposing of propane in the end-uses in these refrigerants may share the subpart F does not exempt the release of this rule does not pose a threat to the characteristic of flammability with the listed refrigerants and substitutes environment. The venting of propane in propane, they have other physical from other applicable laws and certain end-uses may also be the safest characteristics and end-uses than regulations which may prohibit or limit option in some situations, considering propane. Moreover, the mere fact that releases into the environment. that such refrigerants are flammable but the Agency has analyzed some Response: One of the criteria EPA most existing recovery equipment is not flammable HC refrigerants in some considers in determining whether a designed and constructed for use with specific end-uses and made the refrigerant poses a threat to the flammable refrigerants (e.g., with spark- necessary determination to exempt environment when released is whether proof components). Although it is true those substances in those end-uses from such releases are controlled by other that the venting of propane allowed the venting prohibition does not authorities, regulations, or practices. For under the exemption may result in some necessarily mean that such a example, HC refrigerant substitutes may additional waste and consumption, this determination would be appropriate for be subject to restrictions under RCRA is still preferable to unsafe recovery all flammable HC refrigerant substitutes and ammonia may be subject to practices. Therefore, it is appropriate to in all end-uses. restrictions under OSHA regulations, treat propane differently from other Comment: Hudson commented that and when those RCRA or OSHA refrigerant substitutes. EPA has also propane’s low GWP, and the small requirements apply, they would previously exempted propane from the refrigerant charges involved with the disallow the release of these respective venting prohibition when used in other approved uses, does not justify different substances into the environment. EPA is specific end-uses, so this action is treatment for this refrigerant, or for any finalizing regulatory text in 82.154(a) consistent with prior actions taken by of the previously approved and that clarifies that the exemption to the EPA. exempted flammable refrigerants. venting prohibition is specific to the EPA can minimize confusion about Response: The Agency disagrees that prohibition under section 608(c). whether the refrigerant may or may not these characteristics do not justify be vented and can also make different treatment for this refrigerant. f. Conclusion technicians and the public aware of the GWP, ODP, and total possible usage are EPA has reviewed the potential flammability of a refrigerant through the some of the characteristics appropriate environmental impacts of propane in use of red coloration for hoses and to consider in determining whether the the three specific end-uses in this labeling use conditions so that they can release of propane from these three end- action, as well as the authorities, take appropriate precautions. Together uses poses a threat to the environment. controls, and practices in place for that these markings clearly distinguish an Comment: The Alliance commented substitute. EPA also considered the appliance containing propane or other that the appropriateness of waiving the public comments on the proposal for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86802 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

this action. Based on this review, EPA to cool air throughout a large • All refrigerants meeting the criteria concludes that propane in these end- commercial building, such as an office for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ uses and subject to these use conditions building or hotel. This rule specifically ASHRAE Standard 34–2013. These are not expected to pose a threat to the concerns unitary split AC systems and include, but are not limited to, environment based on the inherent heat pumps, commonly called central refrigerant products sold under the characteristics of these substances and AC. These systems include an outdoor names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a the limited quantities used in the unit with a condenser and a compressor, refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, relevant applications. EPA additionally refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez EF- concludes that existing authorities, evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air 22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, controls, or practices help mitigate throughout a building. Unitary split heat HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill environmental risk from the release of pumps are similar but offer the choice 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a. propane in these end-uses and subject to to either heat or cool the indoor space. For background on the flammability these use conditions. This action applies to certain flammable classes and their criteria in ANSI/ In light of these conclusions and those refrigerants for retrofit use in this type ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, see section described or identified above in this of equipment. VI.A.1.b.i.(b). section, EPA is determining that based EPA is aware of a number of ii. What other types of equipment are on current evidence and risk analyses, situations where companies have sold used for similar applications pumps but the venting, release, or disposal of highly flammable refrigerants for use in are not covered by this section of the propane in these end-uses during the residential AC that have not been rule? maintenance, servicing, repairing, or submitted to SNAP for review. EPA has disposing of the relevant appliances The unacceptability determination for conducted enforcement actions against does not pose a threat to the certain flammable refrigerants in this companies that have sold such environment. action does not apply to other types of substitutes in violation of EPA’s EPA is therefore exempting from the residential and light commercial AC and regulations. EPA is also aware of venting prohibition at 40 CFR heat pump equipment, but may do so in multiple instances where people and 82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses the future. Other types of residential property using one of the numerous for which these HCs are being listed as and light commercial AC and heat refrigerants marketed as ‘‘22a’’ in a acceptable, subject to use conditions, pump equipment not included in this residential AC system were harmed in under the SNAP program. unacceptability determination include: explosions and fires, in part because the • Multi-split air conditioners and person servicing the AC system was not 3. Unacceptable Listing of Certain heat pumps; aware that the system contained a Flammable Refrigerants for Retrofits in highly flammable refrigerant. • Mini-split air conditioners and heat Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Considering this demonstration of the pumps; Pumps flammability risks of retrofitting • Packaged outdoor air conditioners residential AC systems as well as the a. Background and heat pumps; • lack of risk mitigation available for Existing unitary split AC systems and Window air conditioners and heat existing equipment (e.g., charge limits heat pumps were not designed to use a pumps; • or design for reduced leakage), EPA is flammable refrigerant. People and Packaged terminal air conditioners listing R-22a, 22a, and other similar property have been harmed by the (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat liquified petroleum gases as retrofit or so-called ‘drop-in’ use of pumps (PTHP); and unacceptable, as well as refrigerants • certain flammable refrigerants in Portable room air conditioners and with a flammability classification of 3 in existing unitary split AC and heat pump heat pumps. ASHRAE 34–2013 or that meet the equipment designed to use a For a description of these types of criteria for such classification, including nonflammable refrigerant. For new room equipment, see section VI.A.3.a.i in the R-22a, 22a, and other similar liquified AC equipment, we have listed certain proposed rule (81 FR 22833; April 18, petroleum gases, as unacceptable in this flammable refrigerants as acceptable on 2016). end use. the basis that flammability risks can be b. What is EPA’s final decision? In addition to refrigerants specifically addressed in designing the equipment identified in the ASHRAE 34–2013 and mitigated through use conditions. As proposed, EPA is listing the standard as having a flammability In contrast, existing equipment has not following flammable refrigerants as classification of 3, EPA is listing been designed for flammable unacceptable for retrofits in unitary split refrigerants meeting the criteria of that refrigerants and we have not identified AC systems and heat pumps: standard as unacceptable. In other appropriate use conditions that can • All refrigerants identified as words, refrigerants are unacceptable if manage the flammability risk for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE they exhibit flame propagation and retrofits such that these flammable Standard 34–2013. These include the either have a heat of combustion of refrigerants would pose similar or lower HCs R-1150 (), R-170 (ethane), 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or risk than other available refrigerants in R-1270 (propylene), R-290 (propane), R- an LFL of 0.10 kg/m3 or lower, when this end-use. 50 (methane), R-600 (n-), R-600a tested in accordance with ASTM E681 (isobutane), R-601 (n-), and R- using a spark ignition source at 60 °C i. What is the affected end-use? 601a (); the HC blends R- and 101.3 kPa. Thus, refrigerants The residential and light commercial 433A, R-433B, R-433C, R-436A, R-436B, identified with a flammability AC and heat pumps end-use includes R-441A, and R-443A; and the refrigerant classification of 3 in future editions of equipment for cooling air in individual blends R-429A, R-430A, R-431A, R- ASHRAE 34 would also be unacceptable rooms, in single-family homes, and 432A, R-435A, and R-511A. All of these if they meet those criteria. We are aware sometimes in small commercial refrigerants except R-435A contain HCs, of a number of refrigerant products sold buildings. This end-use differs from with some also containing the over the internet aimed at the market for commercial comfort AC, which uses flammable compounds retrofit usage in refrigeration and AC chillers that cool water that is then used and HFC-152a. equipment using HCFC-22 with names

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86803

containing ‘‘22a,’’ such as R-22a, Blue understanding these refrigerants are all 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express of the same or similar composition, are R-407C, R-407F, R-417A, R-417C, R- 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeez produced by a limited number of 421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost facilities using the same process, and R-427A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz- then are marketed under different RS-44 (2003 composition). These blends Chill 22a, and RED TEK 22a. EPA has names by different distributors. are all non-ozone-depleting. As shown analyzed one of these refrigerants and in Table 3, they have GWPs ranging determined that it contained propane i. How do these unacceptable refrigerants compare to other from approximately 1,770 for R-407C to mixed with a pine-scented odorant. 3,990 for R-507A. Knowingly venting or These refrigerants are also identified as refrigerants for these end-uses with releasing these refrigerants is prohibited flammable in their Safety Data Sheets respect to SNAP criteria? under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, and are often identified as ‘‘liquified EPA has listed a number of codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1). The petroleum gases.’’ Although none of alternatives as acceptable for retrofit these liquified petroleum gas usage in unitary split AC systems and HFC components of these refrigerant refrigerants have been submitted to heat pumps. All of the listed blends are excluded from the definition SNAP for review, EPA expects that they alternatives are HFC blends, with some of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 all are comparable in their flammability containing small percentages CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the to propane and other refrigerants that (approximately five percent or less) of development of SIPs to attain and meet an ASHRAE flammability HCs. Specific blends include R-125/ maintain the NAAQS, while the HC classification of 3. It is our 134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/ components are VOC.

TABLE 3—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS LISTED AS FLAMMABILITY CLASS 3 OR MEETING THE CRI- TERIA FOR FLAMMABILITY CLASS 3 COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS LISTED AS ACCEPTABLE FOR RETROFIT IN EXISTING EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AC [Unitary split AC systems and heat pumps] 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 2–120 0 ...... Yes 3 ...... Unacceptable. 34–2013. All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ 2–120 0 ...... Yes 3 ...... Unacceptable. ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, including, but not limited to the products named R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky22a 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 TEK22a. R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-421A, R-427A, R-507A ...... 1,770–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. Hot Shot 2, R-125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/1.9), R-125/R-290/R-134a/R- 1,810–3,390 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R- 427A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).. 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 entire refrigerant or most of the constituents are VOC. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

In the proposed rule (81 FR 22835; unacceptable in this action are non- currently listed as acceptable in this April 18, 2016), EPA provided ozone depleting. The refrigerants being end-use are nonflammable, resulting in information on the risk to human health listed as unacceptable would result in no risk of fire or explosion from and the environment presented by the higher VOC emissions than the flammability of the refrigerant. In alternatives that are being found acceptable refrigerants, with the comparison, ASHRAE Class 3 unacceptable as compared with other saturated HCs (e.g., propane, isobutane) refrigerants are highly flammable. As available alternatives listed as having a low impact and unsaturated discussed in section VI.A.4.b.i, EPA acceptable for this end-use. In addition, HCs (e.g., propylene) having a analyzed the flammability impacts of a technical support document 61 that significant impact (see section VI.A.1.b.i one ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerant, R- provides the Federal Register citations on the potential local air quality impacts 443A, and found that a release of the concerning data on the SNAP criteria of propylene and R-443A). The entire refrigerant charge inside a (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, refrigerants being listed as unacceptable building from a larger unitary split AC flammability) for acceptable alternatives have significantly lower GWPs than the system or heat pump could result in in the relevant end-uses may be found refrigerants that would remain surpassing the LFL.62 Because of the in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– acceptable. large charge sizes required for this type HQ–OAR–2015–0663). In summary, As discussed in section VI.A.3.a.ii in of equipment and the similar LFLs for both the currently acceptable the proposed rule (81 FR 22835–36; other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants, it is refrigerants and those we are listing as April 18, 2016), EPA’s SNAP program likely the LFL would also be surpassed evaluated the flammability and toxicity 61 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- risks from the flammable refrigerants in 62 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy Uses Considered in the Rule, Protection of Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for the end-use in this rule. EPA is Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light Certain Substitutes under the Significant New providing some of that information in Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. this section as well. All refrigerants Substitute: R-443A.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86804 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

for other ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants in EPA’s risk assessments are available in split AC systems and heat pumps. a similar worst-case situation. Fires and the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– AHRI, JRAIA, and Chemours supported harm to people and property have HQ–OAR–2015–0663). the proposed listing, stating it would already occurred in multiple cases due mitigate demonstrated risks of serious ii. When will the listings apply? to retrofit or drop-in use of R-22a and injury and property damage. NRDC and similar products in existing unitary split EPA is establishing a listing date as of IGSD found EPA’s proposed AC systems and heat pumps. As January 3, 2017, the same as the unacceptability finding for Class 3 discussed above, EPA expects that R- effective date of this regulation. To date, flammable refrigerants in retrofit 22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant none of these substitutes have been applications reasonable and necessary Express 22a, DURACOOL–22a, EC–22, submitted to EPA for this end-use for to ensure a safe transition to low-GWP Ecofreeez EF–22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES– retrofit use. Under 40 CFR 82.174, alternatives. 22a, Frost 22a, HC–22a, Maxi-Fridge, manufacturers are prohibited from Response: EPA agrees with the MX–22a, Oz-Chill 22a, and RED TEK introducing them into interstate commenters and is finalizing these 22a are comparable in their commerce for this end-use for retrofit listing decisions as proposed. flammability to propane and other use. Thus, manufacturers and service Comment: AHRI, JRAIA, and the refrigerants that meet an ASHRAE technicians should not be currently Alliance requested that EPA list all flammability classification of 3. using these substitutes in the manner refrigerants classified as A3 under Both the acceptable refrigerants and that would be prohibited by this listing ASHRAE Standard 34 as unacceptable the unacceptable refrigerants are able to decision. for retrofitting in all types of residential be used in this end-use in accordance and light commercial AC and heat c. How is EPA responding to comments? with their respective 8-hr or 10-hr pumps. JRAIA also requested similar workplace exposure limits. However, EPA received several comments from treatment for retrofitting of flammable acute exposure may also be of concern individuals and organizations with refrigerants to all types retail food during use in unitary split AC systems various interests in residential AC. refrigeration equipment. The and heat pumps because of possible Comments were in reference to the commenters expressed concern that by exposure to consumers in the event of proposed listing status of ASHRAE issuing an unacceptability listing only a sudden release. For instance, as Class 3 flammable refrigerants, for unitary split AC and heat pumps, discussed below in section VI.A.4.b.i, extending the proposal to other end- some may conclude that it is currently EPA analyzed the acute toxicity of the uses, and use of unique fittings with acceptable to retrofit other, similar propylene component of one ASHRAE flammable refrigerants. Most equipment classes with similar risks Class 3 refrigerant, R-443A, and found commenters supported the proposed with these refrigerants. that a release of the entire refrigerant listing decisions and effective date of 30 Response: EPA did not propose and is charge inside a building from a larger days after date of publication of the rule not finalizing provisions to list Class 3 unitary split AC system or heat pump in the Federal Register, while one flammable as unacceptable for could result in surpassing the acute commenter suggested a listing as retrofitting other types of refrigeration exposure limit.63 Because of the large unacceptable was not needed for some and AC equipment besides unitary split charge sizes required for this type of specific refrigerants. Commenters AC systems and heat pumps. This equipment and somewhat lower acute generally agreed that use of flammable would require an additional opportunity exposure limits for the HC components refrigerants in equipment that was not for public comment. We have received of ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants designed for them was potentially reports of the use of highly flammable compared to HFCs and the acceptable dangerous. refrigerants only in unitary split AC refrigerants in this end-use, acute Commenters included AHRI, the systems and heat pumps, so we are less exposure could be a concern for some Japan Refrigeration and Air concerned that such refrigerants are specific Class 3 refrigerants. Conditioning Industry Association likely to be used in other types of For these end-uses, although use of (JRAIA), and the Alliance, three residential and light commercial AC and the highly flammable refrigerants would industry organizations; Whitmyre heat pump equipment. Further, in EPA’s result in a reduced climate impact, the Equipment Company and Whitmyre listings of the Class 3 flammable safety risks of using these refrigerants in Research, consultants for A.S. Trust & refrigerants propane, isobutane, and R- existing equipment that was designed Holdings; United Technologies Climate 441A in a number of end-uses, for nonflammable refrigerants creates a Controls & Security (UTC CCS and including stand-alone retail food more significant and imminent risk. In hereafter ‘‘UTC’’); Hudson, a refrigerant refrigeration equipment and room AC addition to flammability risk, in at least reclaimer; Chemours, a chemical and heat pump equipment, we have some cases, the likelihood for an producer; and environmental included a use condition specifying that exceedance of acute exposure limits of organizations NRDC and IGSD. the listing is only for new equipment the unacceptable refrigerants also We have grouped comments together specifically designed for the refrigerant. supports a determination that those and responded to the issues raised by Thus, EPA does not agree that the refrigerants pose significantly greater the comments in the sections that industry is likely to perceive an risk than other available alternatives. follow, or in a separate Response to unacceptable listing only for retrofit of The Agency is open to revisiting this Comments document which is included one type of equipment as implying listing decision if we receive in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– acceptability of retrofit for other types of information on how risks from the OAR–2015–0663). equipment. Further, as EPA has refrigerants listed as unacceptable can received no submissions for retrofitting be sufficiently mitigated. Further i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed flammable refrigerants in any residential information on these analyses and Comment: The Alliance, Chemours, AC or retail food refrigeration use and Hudson, JRAIA, and NRDC, all has not issued a listing for any such use, 63 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy supported EPA’s proposal to list both introduction into interstate Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector refrigerants classified as A3 (or meeting commerce and use in retrofit Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. A3 criteria) under ASHRAE Standard 34 refrigeration and AC equipment are Substitute: R-443A. as unacceptable for retrofitting unitary violations of EPA’s SNAP regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86805

Thus, even without an explicit listing of criteria for Class 3 refrigerants in future • cold storage warehouses. unacceptability, it is not allowed to versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 34, as those EPA has received a submission for R- retrofit with flammable refrigerants in criteria are not available for EPA or the 443A in new residential and light existing equipment. public to consider. If ASHRAE changes commercial AC and heat pumps and for Comment: JRAIA commented that the standard to revise those criteria, new window air conditioners, a subset charging systems with refrigerants for EPA could consider whether to take of that end-use. We have also received which the equipment was not originally rulemaking action considering whether a submission for propylene for use in designed can lead to failures and to modify the listing decision to reflect new chillers for commercial comfort AC malfunctions, as well as safety risks. the criteria in the revised standard. (centrifugal and positive displacement The commenter stated that if defects iii. Unique Fittings chillers) and for cold storage occur in equipment due to improperly warehouses. Because the two retrofitting with flammable refrigerant, Comment: AHRI supported the use of refrigerants, R-443A and propylene, even if no injury occurs, in most cases separate servicing fittings for flammable have similar properties and risk profiles, the equipment must be replaced with refrigerants beyond labeling and color we reviewed both refrigerants for all the equipment owners themselves coded hosing and piping. The four end-uses. responsible for the replacement cost. commenter stated that equipment Propylene, also known as or Response: EPA agrees that charging originally designed for non-flammable R-1270, is a HC with three carbons, the systems with refrigerants for which the refrigerants will not necessarily be C3H6, and the CAS equipment was not originally designed equipped with different fittings Reg. No. 115–17–1. R-443A is a HC can lead to failures and malfunctions. increasing the risk of injury during blend 64 consisting of 55 percent However, that type of issue is not a servicing. Whitmyre Equipment propylene, 40 percent propane, and five consideration in determining whether to Company and Whitmyre Research percent isobutane by weight. list a substitute as acceptable or asserted that there is no need for DOE has indicated its intent to issue unacceptable, though it could be concern about AC or heat pump systems a proposed energy conservation considered in establishing use being retrofitted for use with R-443A or standard for portable air conditioners, a conditions for an acceptable substitute. other propylene-containing refrigerants, subset of the residential and light The basis of EPA’s unacceptability as this will not be permitted due to use commercial air conditioning and heat decision is that the overall risk to of unique hardware fittings which have pumps end-use. For further information human health and the environment is already been discussed with, and on the relationship between this action greater for ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants approved by, EPA. and other federal rules, see section because of the flammability risk, and in Response: There currently is no VI.A.3.b.v of the proposed rule (81 FR some cases the toxicity risk, than for requirement for unique fittings on 22841; April 18, 2016). other available substitutes for residential AC and heat pump retrofitting in unitary split AC and heat equipment. EPA has not proposed and b. What is EPA’s final decision? pumps. is not finalizing the use of separate As proposed, EPA is listing the servicing fittings for flammable refrigerants propylene (R-1270) and R- ii. Industry Standards and Codes refrigerants. We agree that such fittings 443A as unacceptable in new equipment Comment: UTC, with Carrier, Taylor, can be useful to prevent the use of in residential and light commercial AC and Kidde Fenwal as member refrigerants that a piece of equipment and heat pumps, cold storage companies, stated that EPA should list was not designed to use and could warehouses, and centrifugal and Class 3 refrigerants as unacceptable for consider whether to modify the existing positive displacement chillers for use in unitary split AC and heat pumps acceptable listings to include such a commercial comfort AC. EPA’s concerns but should clarify that future Class 3 requirement. While it is true that certain about propylene and R-443A are refrigerants added to successive editions of the refrigerants EPA is listing as primarily due to the effect of these of ASHRAE 34 will also be unacceptable in this end-use have refrigerants on local air quality, unacceptable. The commenter noted developed unique fittings for other end- although for some equipment with that the regulatory text references ANSI/ uses for which there is a unique fitting higher charge sizes, flammability and ASHRAE standard 34–2013: Designation requirement, it is unclear that would toxicity are also a concern. Other and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, prevent use as a retrofit in the end-uses acceptable refrigerants are available in November 2013, and thus, EPA’s at issue here since for those end-uses, the same end-uses that pose overall determination of ‘‘all refrigerants’’ there is no unique fitting requirement. lower risk than R-443A and propylene. meeting the criteria in the 2013 edition 4. Unacceptable Listing of Propylene i. How do these unacceptable of the standard might not extend to and R-443A for New Residential and refrigerants compare to other refrigerants which meet the criteria in Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, refrigerants for these end-uses with future editions of the standard. Cold Storage Warehouses, and Response: To the extent that future respect to SNAP criteria? Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Class 3 refrigerants meet the criteria in EPA has listed a number of Chillers ANSI/ASHRAE 34–2013, they will be alternatives as acceptable in new unacceptable. Specifically, if a a. Background equipment in residential and light refrigerant exhibits flame propagation The refrigeration and AC end-uses commercial AC and heat pumps, cold and either has a heat of combustion of addressed in this action include: 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 BTU/lb) or greater or • Centrifugal chillers; 64 EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we an LFL of 0.10 kg/m3 or lower, it is • positive displacement chillers; review and list refrigerants with specific • compositions (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994). To unacceptable because it is a refrigerant residential and light commercial AC the extent possible, we follow ASHRAE’s ‘‘meeting the criteria for flammability and heat pumps, including both self- designations for refrigerants. Blends of refrigerants Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– contained units (e.g., window air must be reviewed separately. For example, we consider each blend of propane with isobutane to 2013.’’ However, EPA cannot create a conditioners, PTACs and PTHPs, be a different and unique refrigerant, and each listing that would automatically find portable AC units) and split systems; would require separate submission, review and refrigerants unacceptable based on the and listing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86806 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

storage warehouses, and centrifugal and of zero (e.g., HFCs, HFOs, CO2, such as R-450A and R-513A in all four positive displacement chillers for ammonia, HCs, and not-in-kind end-uses; HFC-134a, R-407C and R-407F commercial comfort AC. In the technologies).65 Of the acceptable in cold storage warehouses and proposed rule (81 FR 22837–22841; refrigerants having an ODP, they have residential and light commercial AC and April 18, 2016), EPA provided ODPs ranging from 0.00024 to 0.047.66 67 heat pumps; and R-410A in residential information on the risk to human health Thus, propylene and R-443A have ODPs and light commercial AC and heat and the environment presented by the comparable to or less than the ODPs of pumps. The GWPs of propylene and R- alternatives that are being found other alternatives in the end-uses in this 443A are comparable to or higher than unacceptable as compared with other rule. those of CO , propane, isobutane, R- available alternatives listed as Propylene and the components of R- 2 441A, ammonia, HFO-1234ze(E), trans- acceptable in these end-uses. In 443A have relatively low GWPs of less 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, and addition, a technical support document than ten. As shown in Table 4, GWPs of that provides the Federal Register acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses not-in-kind technologies such as Stirling citations concerning data on the SNAP range from zero (NIK) to 3,990 (R-507A) cycle, water/lithium bromide criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, in new residential and light commercial absorption, desiccant cooling, or flammability) for acceptable alternatives AC and heat pumps; zero (ammonia and evaporative cooling, each of which is in the relevant end-uses may be found not-in-kind technologies) to 630 (R- acceptable in new equipment for one or in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– 513A) in new chillers, and zero more of the four end-uses. In addition, HQ–OAR–2015–0663). (ammonia) to approximately 1,830 (R- propylene and R-443A have lower Propylene and R-443A have an ODP 407F) for new cold storage GWPs than those of ODS historically of zero. Many acceptable substitutes in warehouses.68 The GWPs of propylene used in these end-uses, CFC-12 (GWP = the refrigeration and AC end-uses and R-443A are lower than those of a 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); and R- addressed in this rule also have an ODP number of HFCs and HFC/HFO blends, 502 (GWP = 4,660).69

TABLE 4—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF PROPYLENE AND R-443A COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN NEW EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AC AND HEAT PUMPS, COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES, CEN- TRIFUGAL CHILLERS AND POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

Propylene, R-443A ...... 2–3 0 ...... Yes ...... Unacceptable. New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps HFC-32 3, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, 675–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-507A. R-290 3, R-441A 3, THR-03 3, R-125/R-134a/R-600a (28.1/70.0/ 3–3,390 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 1.9), R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). New Cold Storage Warehouses HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F, R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 ...... 1–1,810 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, KDD6, R-437A, RS-24 (2002 30–1,810 0—Not public 5 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. composition), RS-44, SP34E, THR-02, THR-03. New Centrifugal Chillers HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 ...... 0–630 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-514A, THR-02 ...... 7–560 0—Not public 5 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. New Positive Displacement Chillers HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 ...... 0–631 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-514A, THR-02 ...... 0–560 0—Not public 5 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 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 Listed only for use in room AC units. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC. 5 The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business information.

65 We assume that substitutes containing no HCFC-142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or 69 IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. HCFC-142b may not be used to manufacture new Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 66 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- pre-charged appliances or appliance components or the Fourth Assessment Report of the Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of to charge new appliances assembled onsite. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Substitutes containing these HCFCs have ODPs Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Certain Substitutes under the Significant New ranging from 0.01 to 0.065. Class I and II ODS Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. historically used as refrigerants in these end-uses (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 67 Under EPA’s phaseout regulations, virgin have ODPs that range from 0.01 to 1.0. HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing 68 At the time of proposal, the highest GWP of any United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to service acceptable alternative in each of these end-uses was document is accessible at: www.ipcc.ch/ existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, 3,990. publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86807

In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA refrigerant used in equipment and it was emitted, there would be a worst-case evaluated potential impacts of all emitted (if it were to be exempted impact of 4.47 ppb ozone in the Los propylene and the components of R- from the venting prohibition under CAA Angeles area. In the other cities 443A on local air quality. Propylene and section 608), the model predicted that examined in the analysis, Houston and the three components of R-443A, the maximum increase in the 8-hour Atlanta, which have also had propylene, propane, and isobutane meet average ground-level ozone historically high levels of ambient the definition of VOC under CAA concentration would be 6.61 ppb in Los ozone, impacts were smaller (as much regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and Angeles, which is the area with the as 0.67 and 0.39 ppb, respectively).74 are not excluded from that definition for highest level of ozone pollution in the Approximately 72–73 percent of the the purpose of developing SIPs to attain United States. For purposes of emissions were estimated to come from and maintain the NAAQS. However, comparison, the ground-level ozone the residential and light commercial AC there is a significant difference in the limit under the NAAQS has been 75 ppb and heat pumps end-use in those less photochemical reactivity between since 2008.72 We have concerns that conservative analyses, indicating that propylene and the other two HCs. widespread emissions of propylene emissions from this end-use could have Propylene, because it has an from use as a refrigerant could interfere a particularly large impact. Both the unsaturated double bond between two with the ability of some nonattainment most conservative as well as the less carbons, is significantly more reactive in areas to reach attainment, both with the conservative but more probable the atmosphere than propane, the 2008 NAAQS and the new, more assessments indicated there could be saturated HC with the same number of stringent standard. significant air quality impacts of these carbon atoms, and isobutane. For EPA also performed less conservative refrigerants if they are released to the example, the Maximum Incremental analyses that considered the end-uses atmosphere. Reactivity (MIR) of propylene, in gram where these refrigerants would more An analysis we performed to support ozone per gram of the substance, is likely be used, based upon submissions the proposed rule specifically 11.57 while the MIR of propane is 0.56 received and upon end-uses where there examining use of R-443A and propylene g O3/g and the MIR of isobutane is 1.34 are industry standards addressing the in residential and light commercial AC 70 g O3/g. Thus, propylene is roughly 21 use of flammable refrigerants. Propylene and heat pumps, cold storage times more reactive than propane and was previously listed as an acceptable warehouses, and commercial comfort roughly nine times more reactive than substitute in industrial process AC (centrifugal and positive isobutane for the same mass. Propylene refrigeration. EPA has received displacement chillers) found noticeable is also more than 100 times more submissions for use of R-443A in impacts from these end-uses. If reactive than HFC-134a (MIR < 0.1) and residential and light commercial AC and propylene were the only refrigerant in a number of other HFCs acceptable for heat pumps and window air these end-uses and it was emitted from these end-uses and is significantly more conditioners. We have received a SNAP residential and light commercial AC and reactive than unsaturated halogenated submission for use of propylene in cold heat pumps and cold storage substitutes in these end-uses, such as storage warehouses and in commercial warehouses,75 the analysis indicated HFO-1234yf (MIR = 0.28), HFO- comfort AC in chillers, and have there would be a worst-case impact of 1234ze(E) (MIR = 0.098), or trans-1- received inquiries about using 4.45 ppb ozone in the Los Angeles area, chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene propylene in retail food refrigeration. In 1.21 ppb in Houston, and 0.65 in (Solstice TM 1233zd(E)) (MIR = 0.040). addition, EPA is aware that UL has Atlanta, respectively.76 77 Assuming that EPA analyzed a number of scenarios developed standards addressing use of propylene were used in all cold storage to consider the potential impacts on flammable refrigerants in stand-alone warehouses and centrifugal and positive local air quality if HC refrigerants were retail food refrigeration equipment and displacement chillers; room air used widely. We used EPA’s Vintaging coolers; vending machines; water conditioners could use either R-443A or Model to estimate the HC emissions coolers; commercial ice machines; the currently listed VOC refrigerants from these scenarios and EPA’s household refrigerators and freezers; propane or R-441A; other residential Community Multiscale Air Quality and room air conditioners; and is and light commercial AC and heat (CMAQ) model to assess their potential currently developing revisions to UL pumps all used R-443A; and these incremental contributions to ground- 1995 for residential AC equipment. refrigerants were all emitted from cold level ozone concentrations.71 The first Thus, we considered scenarios where storage warehouses and residential and analysis assumed that all refrigerant propylene would be used and emitted light commercial AC and heat pumps, used was emitted to the atmosphere, as (1) in all stationary AC and refrigeration there would be a worst-case impact of it could be if refrigerants were exempted end-uses, but excluding MVAC, (2) in 2.57 ppm ozone in the Los Angeles area, from the venting prohibition of CAA all refrigeration end-uses and all AC 0.77 ppb in Houston, and 0.44 ppb in section 608. In that highly conservative end-uses except for MVAC and chillers Atlanta, respectively.78 79 scenario, the model predicted that the for commercial comfort AC. For further maximum increase in the 8-hour details on the scenarios and end-uses in 74 Ibid. average ground-level ozone the analysis, see the docket for this 75 The analysis assumed that local and state safety 73 regulations required recovery of refrigerant from concentration would be 0.72 ppb in Los rulemaking. commercial comfort air conditioning equipment. Angeles if the most reactive saturated Based on this still conservative 76 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy HC, isobutane, were the only refrigerant assessment of refrigerant use, we found Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector and it was all emitted to the that if all the refrigerant in appliances Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light atmosphere. If the unsaturated HC Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. in the end-uses analyzed were to be Substitute: R-443A. propylene was assumed to be the only 77 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy 72 The standard has recently been lowered to 70 Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 70 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact ppb (80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015). Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level 73 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 1270). 71 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 78 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 1270). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86808 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Based on these analyses, EPA this rule. Risk screens containing these the risk of asphyxiation and of exposure estimates that potential emissions of evaluations are provided in the docket, to toxic levels of refrigerant for a saturated HCs, if used as refrigerant but EPA is providing some of that plausible worst-case scenario and a substitutes in all end-uses in the information in this section as well. typical use scenario for each refrigerant refrigeration and AC sector would have Propylene and R-443A are both in each end-use. little impact on local air quality. designated as A3 refrigerants according To evaluate toxicity of both However, emissions of propylene, an to ASHRAE 34–2013 and subsequent refrigerants, EPA estimated the unsaturated HC, whether used as addenda. Thus, their flammability is maximum TWA exposure both for a propylene or as part of the blend R- comparable to that of ethane, propane, short-term exposure scenario, with a 30- 443A, could have a significant negative isobutane, and R-441A, other minute TWA exposure, and for an 8- impact, whether for all refrigeration and refrigerants that EPA has listed as hour TWA that would be more typical AC uses or for the uses in which we are acceptable, subject to use conditions, in of occupational exposure for a listing these refrigerants as a number of end-uses (76 FR 78832, technician servicing the equipment. We unacceptable.80 December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April compared these short-term and long- In response to public comments, EPA 10, 2015). Due to their flammable term exposure values to relevant reevaluated these substitutes, assuming nature, propylene and R-443A could industry and government workplace a prohibition on venting propylene and pose a significant safety concern for exposure limits for propylene and the R-443A. However, even that additional workers and consumers if they are not components of R-443A (including analysis showed that there was still a properly handled. In the presence of an potential impurities). The modeling potential for significant negative ignition source (e.g., static electricity results indicate that both the short-term impacts on air quality. Assuming that spark resulting from closing a door, (30-minute) and long-term (8-hour) propylene were used in all cold storage using a torch during service, or a short worker exposure concentrations would warehouses and centrifugal and positive circuit in wiring that controls the motor be below the relevant workplace displacement chillers; room air of a compressor), an explosion or a fire exposure limits in cold storage conditioners could use either R-443A or could occur when the concentration of warehouses, centrifugal and positive the currently listed VOC refrigerants refrigerant exceeds its LFL. The LFLs of displacement chillers, and residential propane or R-441A; other residential the substitutes are 2.03 percent for R- and light commercial AC and heat 82 83 and light commercial AC and heat 443A and 2 percent for propylene. pumps.86 The acceptable refrigerants in pumps all used R-443A; and these To determine whether flammability these end-uses and those we are listing refrigerants were subject to the venting would be a concern for manufacturing as unacceptable in this action can be prohibition, there would be a worst-case and service personnel or for consumers, used in these end-uses in accordance impact of 2.09 ppb ozone in the Los EPA analyzed a plausible worst-case with their respective workplace Angeles area, 0.54 ppb in Houston, and scenario to model a catastrophic release exposure limits. 0.28 ppb in Atlanta, respectively.81 For of the refrigerants. Those analyses found For equipment with which consumers further details on the scenarios and end- that a release of the entire charge from might come into contact, such as uses in the analyses, see the docket for equipment with smaller charge sizes, residential AC and heat pumps, EPA such as room air conditioners or small this rulemaking. also performed a consumer exposure chillers, would not exceed the LFL. Ecosystem effects, primarily effects on analysis. EPA considered toxicity limits Release of larger charge sizes such as aquatic life, of the substitutes we are for consumer exposure that reflect a from a large residential unitary split AC listing as unacceptable are expected to short-term or acute exposure such as system or heat pump or a large chiller be small as are the effects of other might occur at home or in a store or could exceed the LFL under some acceptable substitutes. Propylene, other public setting where a member of circumstances.84 85 Further information propane and isobutane are all highly the general public could be exposed and on these analyses and EPA’s risk volatile and would evaporate or could then escape. In EPA’s initial risk assessments are available in section partition to air, rather than contaminate screen used to support the proposal, the VI.A.3.b.iii of the proposed rule (81 FR surface waters. Neither propylene nor R- estimated 30-minute consumer 22837; April 18, 2016) and in the docket 443A pose a greater risk of aquatic or exposures to the refrigerants exceeded for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR– ecosystem effects than those of other the toxicity limits for the propylene 2015–0663). substitutes for these uses. component of R-443A in all cases but In evaluating potential toxicity As discussed in section VI.A.3.b.iii in the least conservative, for a room air impacts of propylene and R-443A on the proposed rule (81 FR 22839–41; conditioner. In response to public human health, EPA considered April 18, 2016), EPA’s SNAP program comments on the proposal, EPA occupational risk for all end-uses, and evaluated the flammability and toxicity reconsidered the toxicity profile and the also considered consumer risk for the risks from propane in the end-uses in toxicity limit for consumer exposure for residential and light commercial AC and propylene and determined that its acute heat pump end-use. EPA investigated Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light toxicity was not significantly different Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. 82 A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to from that of propane. We reanalyzed the 79 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Incompleteness Letter from A.S. Trust & Holdings modeled exposures against the same Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector to EPA—Sent March 7, 2014. exposure threshold we used for Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold 83 Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for Propylene. analyzing acute toxicity of propane (e.g., Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- 84 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives Policy 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes by analogy 1270). Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector 80 ICF, 2014a and attachment, Follow-on Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light to the 30-minute Acute Emergency Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps. Guideline Limits (AEGL)-1 for propane). Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Substitute: R-443A. Using this less conservative analysis, Concentrations. March, 2016. 85 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy the propylene fraction of R-443A could 81 ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector meet the exposure limit in smaller room of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and Cold on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. September, Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- 2016. 1270). 86 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86809

air conditioners, but not in split AC EIA; and a number of anonymous propylene than to introduce a ban on its systems with higher charges. commenters. use. The currently acceptable refrigerants We have grouped comments together Response: EPA appreciates the such as HFCs, HFC blends, or HFOs, are and responded to the issues raised by additional information provided by the able to achieve their acute exposure the comments in the sections that commenters concerning the limits, which are generally higher than follow, or in a separate Response to performance of propylene as a that for propylene. Because of the Comments document which is included refrigerant but does not find this relatively low acute exposure limit for in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– information a sufficient reason for propylene and the potential for OAR–2015–0663). changing our proposal, given the exceedances of that limit, acute Comment: NRDC and IGSD stated that primary basis for EPA’s decision is exposure may be a greater concern than EPA’s extensive tests on exposure and effects on local air quality. Concerning for many other acceptable refrigerants in toxicity, as well as the effects on local comments that propylene is already residential and light commercial AC air quality, show significant concern used in Europe and the United States, systems and heat pumps with larger with propylene. The commenters stated we note that propylene is only listed as charge sizes. Further information on that propylene and majority-propylene acceptable in industrial process these analyses, EPA’s risk assessments, blends are neither ideal nor necessary refrigeration and not in the other types as well as information from the for achieving EPA’s climate goals, and of equipment mentioned by the submitters of the substitutes are in the threaten a safe, environmentally-sound commenters. EPA disagrees with the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– transition to lower-GWP refrigerants. commenters on other points concerning OAR–2015–0663). Chemours also supported EPA’s the SNAP criteria. Refrigerant proposal. performance, refrigerant capacity, ii. When will the listings apply? Response: EPA agrees that there are energy efficiency, and use of odorants significant concerns with the use of EPA is establishing a listing date as of are not among the SNAP program’s propylene—in particular, the potential January 3, 2017, the same as the review criteria. Concerning air quality impacts. Other alternatives flammability, the LFL of propylene is effective date of this regulation. To our are available for the same uses that pose knowledge, manufacturers and service not significantly different from that of lower overall risk to human health and propane (2 percent versus 2.1 percent). technicians are not currently using these the environment. substitutes in the end-uses in this rule. We note that additional work is Comment: EIA commented that both underway on industry standards to We note that EPA has only recently academic studies and end users cite address flammability risks for most of found submissions complete for these propylene as a very high performing the end-uses in this final rule. EPA substitutes, and under the SNAP refrigerant, offering both energy disagrees that propylene can be program regulations, a substitute may efficiency and increased volumetric assumed to have a small relative not be introduced into interstate cooling capacity in comparison to other contribution to the formation of ground- commerce prior to 90 days after EPA alternatives, and provided links to some level ozone, considering both the results receives a complete submission. of this information. EIA stated that of EPA’s analyses, discussed in this c. How is EPA responding to comments? propylene’s low GWP and high section under the heading performance in terms of efficiency and ‘‘Environmental Impacts,’’ and the lack EPA received several comments from capacity carries significant of a way for EPA to limit sales and use individuals and organizations with environmental benefits, its flammability to a specific amount. Emissions from various interests in R-443A and risks can be mitigated, and its benefits industrial process refrigeration propylene. Comments were in reference significantly outweigh potential limited equipment are already part of existing to the proposed listing status of R-443A environmental impacts of a small VOC emissions, and use in additional and propylene and the environmental, relative contribution of propylene as a end-uses would result in additional, flammability, and toxicity impacts of R- refrigerant to formation of ground level incremental VOC emissions that could 443A and propylene. Some commenters ozone. result in significant impacts, depending supported the proposed listing Refrigerants, Naturally! commented on the amount used. As discussed in the decisions and effective date of 30 days that propylene has particular advantages section ‘‘Environmental Impacts,’’ after date of publication of the rule in over propane such as the same or better prohibiting venting of propylene (and R- the Federal Register, while others efficiency, a larger cooling capacity 443A) is not sufficient to ensure opposed them and suggested that R- giving more compact systems, higher minimal impacts on local air quality or 443A and/or propylene should be listed LFL and also a distinctive smell. The to mitigate the environmental risks of as acceptable or acceptable, subject to commenter claimed that combined, these refrigerants. Also see the previous use conditions in one or more of the these lead to more compact and safer response concerning how propane and four end-uses being considered. Some systems (in terms of lower charge sizes other available low-GWP refrigerants commenters thought that these per kW of cooling, smaller flammable compare to propylene in EPA’s refrigerants could be used safely and volumes in event of a leak and pre- evaluation. with minimal environmental impacts warning to technicians working on with appropriate controls, while others systems). Both commenters noted that i. Environmental Impacts expressed concern about the propylene is already safely used in Comment: Refrigerants, Naturally! flammability and environmental Europe and the United States, and Whitmyre Research stated that there impacts of these refrigerants. particularly in stand-alone retail food is no need for concern about R-443A Commenters included Whitmyre refrigeration equipment, as well as in being released into the air because R- Research and Whitmyre Equipment positive displacement chillers and 443A is not exempt from the venting Corporation, consultants for A.S. Trust remote condensing units. Refrigerants, prohibition. The commenters stated that & Holdings; UTC; Chemours, a chemical Naturally! recommended that EPA R-443A refrigerant will be recovered producer; Refrigerants, Naturally!, an reconsider its proposed decision and and recaptured during servicing by industry organization supporting the stated that it would be significantly trained and certified technicians. use of HC refrigerants; NRDC, IGSD, and preferable to impose a ban on venting Refrigerants, Naturally! and EIA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86810 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

recommended that EPA perform another world applicability because they respectively (see NPRM at 81 FR 22839). assessment to re-evaluate the unrealistically assume a rapid takeover In response to comments that EPA assumptions made and to consider of the market with propylene-based should not assume that all propylene or controls to mitigate the release and refrigerants, thereby ignoring the R-443A is vented, EPA created Scenario venting of propylene and R-443A. realities of the refrigerant market. This 8, where it was assumed that intentional Response: EPA disagrees that the CAA commenter suggested that EPA should venting of propylene and R-443A during section 608 prohibition on venting focus upon Scenario 4, the most realistic service, maintenance, repair, and sufficiently addresses potential risks of the scenarios analyzed, which in the disposal, were prohibited in those same due to impacts on air quality. There are commenter’s view does not justify end-uses. Under this scenario, the refrigerant emissions from causes other restrictions on the use of R-443A in split worst-case impacts would be 2.1 ppb than venting that could result in system air conditioning and heat ozone in the Los Angeles area, 0.54 ppb sufficient emissions of propylene to pumps, window ACs or portable room in Houston, and 0.28 ppb in Atlanta, have significant impacts on local air ACs. In contrast, NRDC and IGSD noted respectively. We considered these less quality. As discussed in the preamble to that Scenario 1 shows widespread use conservative assumptions to show that, the proposed rule, ‘‘Other emissions and venting of propylene in even if the venting prohibition were could occur that are not subject to the refrigeration and AC contributing almost observed, emissions of R-443A from venting prohibition and no equipment is seven ppb to ground-level ozone residential split system AC and heat free of refrigerant emissions. Because of concentrations in Los Angeles, pumps and emissions of propylene from the reactivity of these refrigerants, those demonstrating the value of EPA’s cold storage warehouses and centrifugal emissions could interfere with the proposed unacceptability finding. and positive displacement chillers ability of some nonattainment areas to Response: Concerning the three most could result in air quality impacts that reach attainment, both with the 2008 conservative scenarios, Scenarios 1, 2, are not significantly different from those NAAQS and the new, more stringent and 3 were not intended to be realistic in the analyses we relied upon in our standard’’ (81 FR 22839). Examples of projections of the refrigerant market, but proposal. refrigerant releases that are not subject rather, to provide screening estimates to Comment: Whitmyre Research stated to the venting prohibition are releases see if there would be some level of that EPA was inconsistent in leak during good-faith efforts to service refrigerant emissions that could result in profiles used in its ground-level ozone equipment, releases at installation, leaks unacceptably high increases in ground- modeling and the modeling for during the lifetime of the equipment, level ozone. See our response to the occupational exposure impacts. The and any refrigerant that is not same comment at 80 FR 19474 (April commenter stated that if EPA had used withdrawn from the equipment at its 10, 2015). those more realistic assumptions in its end of life. The scenario suggested by the first ground-level ozone analysis, this would EPA repeated its local air quality commenter, Scenario 4, would not have reduced by nearly 89 percent the analysis assuming use of propylene in consider impacts from use of propylene ‘‘disposal’’ emissions in the analysis. chillers for commercial air conditioning and R-443A in all of the end-uses for Response: EPA disagrees with the and in cold storage warehouses and use which they have been submitted—R- commenter’s suggestion that the of R-443A in residential air conditioning 443A in residential split system AC and disposal emissions should be the same and heat pumps.87 This analysis also heat pumps and propylene in cold as those used in EPA’s occupational assumed use of propane and R-441A in storage warehouses and centrifugal and exposure analysis. The release estimates room air conditioners, where they have positive displacement chillers for used in the occupational exposure already been listed as acceptable, as commercial comfort AC. Under the estimates at disposal are for release in well as R-443A. In this follow-on scenarios where EPA also considered the vicinity of workers involved in analysis, EPA assumed that the venting the four end-uses for which R-443A and disposing of the equipment and do not prohibition remains in place for propylene were submitted result in most include releases to the environment propylene and R-443A. Although of the emissions, and thus, the scenario when equipment leaks at the end of its emissions were reduced relative to the suggested by the commenter would useful life. In an additional analysis, scenarios where all HC refrigerants were likely underestimate the impact of rather than assuming the release of 100 exempted from the venting prohibitions, emissions of these two substitutes on air percent of remaining charge at disposal, the analysis still showed that there quality. EPA analyzed additional EPA reassessed emissions at disposal could still be significant impacts. For Scenarios 5, 6, 7, and 8 to evaluate using the assumptions in EPA’s example, in the revised analysis, the potential impacts of propylene and R- Vintaging Model—the same incremental increase in the maximum 8- 443A in the end-uses addressed in this assumptions we use when analyzing hour average ozone value estimated for action.88 The analysis of Scenario 6, a emissions of HFC refrigerants from the Los Angeles was 2.1 ppb. scenario assuming use of R-443A for same kinds of equipment. These Comment: Whitmyre Research said all residential split system AC and heat emission rates reflect input from of EPA’s analyses, and particularly pumps, along with some use of propane industry reviewers and historic Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (in which and R-441A for room air conditioners, information. They also reflect emissions propylene is the sole refrigerant used in and for propylene in cold storage due to leaks from equipment over the all refrigeration and AC; in all warehouses and centrifugal and positive lifetime of the equipment as well as refrigeration and AC uses except MVAC; displacement chillers for commercial emissions at disposal. The remaining and in all refrigeration and AC uses comfort AC, found there would be a emissions were still significant, except MVAC and chillers, worst-case impact of 2.57 ppm ozone in resulting in worst-case incremental respectively), cross the line from being the Los Angeles area, 0.77 ppb in ground-level ozone of 2.1 ppb. overly-conservative to having no real- Houston, and 0.44 ppb in Atlanta, Comment: Richard Maruya of A.S. Trust & Holdings commented that the 87 ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment 88 ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants proposed unacceptable listing for on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. September, on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. September, propylene is an abuse of EPA’s 2016. 2016. authority, since propylene is not listed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86811

by EPA as a hazardous air pollutant charge within one minute. This was an poses lower overall risk to human under the CAA. initial screen to determine whether the health and the environment. For Response: It is not necessary for a refrigerant would ever potentially instance, if the check valve works as substitute to be listed as a hazardous air exceed the LFL or relevant exposure described, it could reduce the amount of pollutant in order for EPA to list it as limits. Since there were some potential refrigerant leaked and potentially avoid unacceptable under the SNAP program exceedances with the most conservative exceedances of the LFL or the acute established by section 612 of the CAA. assumptions, EPA then considered exposure limit. However, it is not clear Rather, EPA must determine that there additional, less conservative that this check valve would be able to are other alternatives available or assumptions concerning ventilation avoid slower leaks that over time potentially available for the same use rates, charge sizes, and stratification or contribute substantially to VOC that pose lower overall risk to human complete mixing of release refrigerant, emissions and to adverse air quality health and the environment. and did not evaluate smaller leaks. EPA impacts, even if it works as designed. ii. Assumptions in EPA’s Analyses agrees with the commenter that slow, Further, EPA has not seen sufficient small leaks are likely to be far more information to be confident of the Comment: Whitmyre Research stated common than large leaks. However, EPA performance of the safety valve. that the release of any refrigerant from must consider the possibility of a iii. Flammability air-conditioning or heat pump units complete release because that is a must be viewed probabilistically—that possible, if less frequent, situation. Comment: Whitmyre Research and is, only a very small fraction of AC or Comment: Whitmyre Research stated Refrigerants, Naturally! stated that heat pump units would experience leaks that EPA analyses incorrectly assumed EPA’s discussion of flammability risk at any given point in time, and only a air-exchange rates far lower than those does not account for probability and small fraction of these leaks would be allowed by ASHRAE standards therefore greatly overstates any concern sudden releases. The commenter stated incorporated in building codes (at least for use of R-443A in both normal that there is no basis for assuming that 0.35 ACH in typical residential operation and maintenance/repair/ every possible leak in an R443A-based structures). Based on data from Pandian disposal situations. Whitmyre Research system would be sudden and complete, et al. (1998),89 the median residential air stated that in order for there to be a as opposed to slow and diluted. Values exchange rate in the United States flammability risk, there must be a co- of 0.1 to one percent are much more (across all regions, all seasons) is 0.5 occurrence of a leak event and a spark realistic than 100 percent full release. ACH. Therefore, the presumed generation event. Subsequently, the Response: With respect to EPA’s exposures are unlikely and unrealistic probabilities of fire for normal operation assumptions for estimating total for both the toxicity and flammability of these devices, when charged with the emissions for its air quality analysis, scenarios presented in this rule. specified amount of R-443A, and during EPA assumed 100 percent release of Response: We disagree that the air maintenance, repair, and disposal, are refrigerant at disposal in most of the exchange rates used in the scenarios are quite low as calculated by the scenarios, to simulate a situation where not representative and do not represent commenter in a fault tree analysis (FTA) venting would not be prohibited. As likely scenarios. First, we note that the included in the submission for R-443A. discussed previously, EPA considered air-exchange value from ASHRAE is Refrigerants, Naturally! commented that scenarios where venting would be from a 2016 standard and applies only there should be no differentiation prohibited and also considered to newly constructed buildings; thus, it between R-443A and other HCs in emissions from leaks. However, based does not apply to existing housing regards to flammability. upon the historical information EPA stock, which is the vast majority of what Response: EPA agrees that used in establishing the Vintaging is available. Second, both the value from flammability risk for R-443A and Model and on reviewer input of those ASHRAE and the median value from propylene would not be significantly data, we consider the commenter’s Pandian et al. fall within the range of air different from the risks for other HC estimated probability of leaks to be low, exchange rates that EPA analyzed of refrigerants for the same uses. EPA’s risk particularly for residential split AC and 0.11 to 0.67 ACH. screen is intended to look first at heat pump equipment and for older Comment: Whitmyre Research and reasonable worst-case scenarios and equipment, which would be more likely Whitmyre Equipment Corporation then at more typical scenarios, while to leak through extended lines. The claimed there is no need for concern remaining protective, and is not study that was the basis for the about leakage because a safety valve intended to discuss probability. EPA did commenter’s estimates was based upon design option already exists (per the evaluate the probability of events monitoring of commercial AC request of EPA) that will greatly limit presented by the submitter in the FTA. equipment in supermarkets of a type refrigerant loss during leak events. As discussed in this section VI.A.4.c.i and age that was not described. If the Response: A safety valve, such as the under ‘‘Assumptions in EPA’s equipment in the study was chiller check valve suggested by the commenter Analyses,’’ the study that was the basis equipment, this leak rate would be for R-443A, may reduce the size of leaks for the commenter’s estimates was based reasonable and close to the annual and thereby reduce risk of using the upon monitoring of commercial AC average leak rate EPA used in its refrigerant. However, the submitter did equipment in supermarkets of a type emissions analysis for chillers, but the not provide information on applying the and age that was not described. If the leak rate would be low for residential or check valve to equipment in this end- equipment in the study was chiller light commercial AC and heat pump use. It is not clear, based on the equipment, this leak rate would be equipment, particularly for split information provided for the check reasonable and close to the annual systems. valve in another end-use, that it would average leak rate EPA used in its With respect to EPA’s leak mitigate risk sufficiently to say R-443A emissions analysis for chillers, but the assumptions in our risk screens for leak rate would be low for residential or purposes of assessing flammability and 89 Pandian et al., 1998. ‘‘Correcting Errors in the light commercial AC and heat pump toxicity impacts, we first conducted a Nationwide Data Base of Residential Air Exchange equipment, particularly for split Rates.’’ Journal of Exposure Analysis and worst-case analysis that assumed a Environmental Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577– systems. Thus, the probabilities release of 95 percent of the refrigerant 585. estimated by the commenter likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

underestimate risks for residential and misplaced, because (1) the Agency’s to determine what might be an light commercial AC and heat pumps. In modeled exposures are based on flawed appropriate, less conservative addition to worst-case scenarios, more methods and incorrect assumptions; (2) benchmark. We concluded that there typical scenarios, and FTAs, EPA also R-443A is only partially made of were not major differences between the considered where there are industry propylene; (3) propylene is simply not two HCs that warranted using a much standards or controls in place that can toxic at the modeled levels; and (4) the lower acute exposure limit for mitigate flammability risks. Agency used inappropriate toxicity propylene than for propane.90 Comment: UTC supported EPA’s benchmarks. Specific assumptions in Therefore, we reevaluated consumer proposal to list both R-443A and some of EPA’s scenarios that the exposure to propylene using an acute propylene as unacceptable in residential commenter disagreed with included the exposure limit of 6,900 ppm over 30 and light commercial AC and heat length of time for the entire refrigerant minutes for propylene, analogous to the pumps, cold storage warehouses, and charge to release, the ventilation rates, AEGL–1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. In centrifugal and positive displacement and the assumption of stratification of that revised evaluation, releases of the chillers for commercial comfort AC. refrigerant (i.e., pooling near the floor). propylene fraction of R-443A from However, the commenter believed that The commenter also stated that the smaller room air conditioners could they also should be found unacceptable Agency must match the time-frame of meet this acute exposure limit, but based on flammability concerns. In exposure to catastrophic releases of R- releases from split AC systems and heat particular, the commenter asserted that 443A (minutes) in establishing a toxicity pumps with higher charges could since both propylene and R-443A are benchmark. exceed the acute exposure limit. Thus, Class 3 flammable refrigerants, they Response: Based on this comment, we still consider toxicity of propylene should be considered unacceptable. EPA reconsidered the available in R-443A to potentially be of concern Response: EPA disagrees that toxicology data for propylene and agrees for residential and light commercial AC flammability concerns should also that it indicates lower concern for acute and heat pump equipment with large provide a basis for listing R-443A and exposure than indicated in our risk charge sizes such as split AC systems, propylene as unacceptable in all the assessment for the proposed rule. but it is not a concern for room air proposed end-uses. EPA previously Concerning the commenter’s complaint conditioners with limited charge sizes. listed two ASHRAE Class 3 refrigerants about the methods and assumptions for Comment: Whitmyre Research stated as acceptable, subject to use conditions, modeled exposures, EPA’s analysis that there is no asphyxiation risk at the for use only in new room air looked at a variety of scenarios. These Immediately Dangerous to Life and conditioners (i.e., propane and R-441A). scenarios considered ventilation rates Health (IDLH) limit; it is not an For those refrigerants, EPA established both above and below those suggested indicator of asphyxiation risk. use conditions that limited charge size by the commenter and both Response: EPA agrees that the IDHL is and that would mitigate flammability stratification of refrigerant and complete not an indicator of asphyxiation risk; risks. We note that the flammability mixing of refrigerant within the space. however, EPA used a minimum oxygen risks for R-443A and propylene are We note that with a higher ventilation concentration of 12 percent in assessing similar to those for other Class A3 rate than that suggested by the asphyxiation risk and did not use the refrigerants. commenter and with an assumption of IDLH. For equipment with larger charge no refrigerant stratification, Comment: Whitmyre Research stated sizes, such as some unitary split AC concentrations reached 9,680 ppm over that the TLV of 500 ppm for propylene systems and heat pumps or most 30 minutes from release of a larger that was established by ACGIH is a centrifugal and positive displacement charge for a split system, exceeding both chronic exposure limit to be applied chillers, the flammability risk is a the excursion limit of 1,500 ppm and an only to repeated exposures at least 40 greater concern than for equipment with acute exposure limit of 6,900 ppm over hours per week over an occupational smaller sizes, such as self-contained 30 minutes, analogous to the AEGL–1 lifetime. ACGIH based the TLV of 500 room air conditioners. However, by for propane. EPA separately evaluated ppm for propylene on nasal irritation stating the flammability risk is greater the propylene fraction when comparing effects occurring in treated animals for equipment with larger charge sizes, modeled concentrations against the exposed 6 hours per day, five days per EPA is not implying that such risks guideline for propylene, and thus, week, for 103 weeks (2 years). No such could never be mitigated. ASHRAE, considered that it is only part of R- nasal effects were observed in rats or AHRI, and DOE are investing $5.2 443A’s composition. mice exposed acutely (i.e., single million in research with the goal of We agree that the modeled exposure inhalation dose) or when exposed to up using the results to update industry levels are below the level at which to 10,000 ppm propylene for 6 hours per standards, subject to the ANSI toxicity has actually been observed. day, 5 days per week for 14 days consensus process, to address However, it is standard practice to use (ACGIH 2006). flammability risks. Such updates to more conservative values in evaluating Response: EPA agrees that the standards would address risks in a toxicity risk than the no observed ACGIH’s TLV for propylene, like other broader range of equipment than the adverse effect level (NOAEL) seen in TLVs, is intended to be a chronic current UL standards. studies to account for uncertainty, such exposure limit and is based on longer as variability within the general iv. Toxicity and Exposure term exposure. However, the ACGIH population or differences between also recommends that short term Comment: Whitmyre Research stated species. Concerning the toxicity excursions over a TLV should be no that the Agency had ‘‘misconstrued the benchmark used by EPA—an excursion more than three times the TLV, on a toxicity of propylene.’’ The commenter limit of three times the ACGIH TLV— regular basis, and in no case should stated that propylene is widely EPA agrees that there could be other, exceed five times the TLV. The recognized as having very low toxicity less conservative benchmarks that could commenter has not suggested a specific by inhalation (e.g., narcosis occurs at be used. We reviewed the available 35–46 percent by volume). Whitmyre toxicity data for propylene and also 90 Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene Research stated that that the Agency’s considered how the toxicity profile of acute toxicity for R-443A risk screen. Prepared for concern for the toxicity of propylene is propylene differs from that of propane EPA. July 6, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86813

value that they propose EPA should use chillers tend to be used for smaller Heavy Industries,95 Smardt Chiller instead to assess risks of short-term capacity needs such as in mid- and low- Group,96 RC Group,97 Engie exposure. rise buildings. See section VI.A.4.b.i of Refrigeration,98 and Climaveneta.99 the proposed rule for additional Centrifugal chillers using the 5. Change of Listing Status for Certain information on the positive alternative R-1233zd(E) have also been HFC Refrigerants for New Centrifugal displacement chiller end-use (81 FR offered, from at least three Chillers and for New Positive 22841–42; April 18, 2016). manufacturers: Trane (a brand of Displacement Chillers Ingersoll Rand),100 Carrier (a brand of a. Background ii. What other types of equipment are UTC) 101 and Mitsubishi Heavy used for similar applications but are not 102 i. What are the affected end-uses? Industries. Ingersoll Rand confirmed covered by this section of the rule? in their comment that they have R- In the proposed rule, EPA described Other equipment including packaged 1233zd(E) centrifugal chillers available two chiller end-uses, specifically rooftop units and split system air now and further stated that they will centrifugal chillers and positive conditioners, both of which fall under have centrifugal chillers under their displacement chillers. We draw the SNAP end-use ‘‘residential and light Trane brand using R-514A available in attention to the fact that, as discussed commercial air conditioning,’’ can also 2017. there, in some cases the same refrigerant be used for commercial comfort AC, A fourth alternative that is already is used in both end-uses. Of note is the typically for even smaller capacity available for some centrifugal chillers is fact that HFC-134a is used for some needs than positive displacement R-513A. For instance, Johnson Controls centrifugal chillers, namely ‘‘high- chillers. These equipment types are not announced this year that the centrifugal pressure’’ centrifugal chillers, as well as centrifugal or positive displacement (and screw) chillers they offer, in some positive displacement chillers, chillers and hence are not covered originally designed for HFC-134a, are such as screw chillers. In addition, as under this section of the rule. EPA compatible with R-513A.103 discussed below, at least two responds to comments regarding the EPA discussed historical and recent alternatives—HFO-1234ze(E) and R- scope of chillers—both centrifugal and use of refrigerants in positive 513A—have been used in both types of positive displacement—end-uses in chillers. EPA received many comments section VI.A.5.c.i. 95 Mitsubishi, 2012. ‘‘Deployment to New Series concerning chillers that did not of ‘eco Turbo chiller ETI series.’ ’’ This document specifically say whether the comment iii. What refrigerants are used in is accessible at http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/ centrifugal and positive displacement review/pdf/491/491058.pdf. was referencing centrifugal chillers, 96 chillers? SMARDT, 2016. ‘‘Revolutionary Energy positive displacement chillers, or both. Savings for the Built Environment’’, ‘‘Trendsetting Therefore, in today’s rule, we are EPA discussed historical and recent Technologies for Centrifugal Chillers.’’ These use of refrigerants in centrifugal chillers documents are available at http://climatecontrolme. addressing both end-uses in this section. com/2013/12/trendsetting-technologies-for- Centrifugal chillers are equipment in section VI.A.4.a.i.(c) of the proposed centrifugal-chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/ that utilize a centrifugal compressor in rule (81 FR 22842; April 18, 2016). docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE%20ENGLISH%20 a vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. Since then, EPA has become aware of JAN%202016.pdf. They are typically used for commercial numerous additional demonstrations, 97 RC Group, 2016. ‘‘Unico Turbo Air Cooled Liquid Chiller.’’ This document is accessible at comfort AC although other uses do availability, and announcements http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/Prodotti/?idP=1563. exist. Centrifugal chillers tend to be regarding alternative refrigerants for use 98 Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ‘‘Quantum: Series used in larger buildings, such as office in centrifugal chillers. For example, and features of the energy-efficient chiller series.’’ buildings, hotels, arenas, convention Honeywell stated in their comments This document is accessible at https://www.engie- refrigeration.de/export/sites/cofelyrefrigeration/ halls, airport terminals, and other that ‘‘[s]everal manufacturers currently content/documents/ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_ buildings. offer high-efficiency chillers, air-cooled Quantum_Folder.pdf. For commercial comfort and some (outdoor) and water-cooled (indoor), 99 Climaveneta, 2015. ‘‘Against Global Warming other applications, centrifugal chillers using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes ranging with the NEW TECS2 HFO Chillers.’’ January 12, from tens of tons to hundreds of tons’’ 2015. This document is accessible at http://www. typically cool water that is then pumped climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press-Releases/ to fan coil units or other air handlers to and listed some examples, including 112.html. cool the air that is supplied to the some centrifugal chillers. Multiple 100 Trane, 2016. ‘‘Trane Announces Significant occupied spaces transferring the heat to companies have introduced chillers Centrifugal Chiller Line Expansion and Services for the water. The heat absorbed by the using HFO-1234ze(E), including Star the United States and Canada.’’ June 15, 2016. This 91 92 document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/ water can then be used for heating Refrigeration, Klima-Therm, commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/ 93 94 purposes, and/or can be transferred Airedale, Geoclima, Mitsubishi newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line- directly to the air (‘‘air-cooled’’), to a expansion.html. cooling tower or body of water (‘‘water- 91 Star Refrigeration, 2012. ‘‘Star’s Three-Way 101 Carrier, 2016. ‘‘Carrier China Showcases latest Development Test for R-1234ze(E).’’ July 2012. This Innovations at China Refrigeration Expo.’’ April 7, cooled’’) or through evaporative coolers document is accessible at http://www.star-ref.co.uk/ 2016. This document is accessible at http://www. (‘‘evaporative-cooled’’). See section star/images/stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%20 carrier.com/carrier/en/us/news/news-article/ VI.A.4.a.i of the proposed rule for 82%20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf. carrier_china_showcases_latest_innovations_at_ _ _ additional information on the 92 RAC, 2012. ‘‘Klima-Therm discusses world’s china refrigeration expo.aspx. first HFO chiller for Waitrose.’’ January 10, 2012. 102 MHI, 2015. ‘‘MHI Develops ‘ETI–Z Series’ of centrifugal chiller end-use (81 FR This document is accessible online at http://www. Next-generation Centrifugal Chiller—Adopt New 22841–42; April 18, 2016). racplus.com/features/klima-therm-discusses- Non-ozone-depleting Refrigeration to Minimize Positive displacement chillers are worlds-first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/8624689.article. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.’’ June 10, 2015. This vapor compression cycle chillers that 93 The NEWS, 2014. ‘‘Airedale Chiller with Low- document is accessible at www.mhi-global.com/ utilize positive displacement GWP HFO Refrigerant to Cool New John Lewis news/story/1506101900.html. Store.’’ June 9, 2014. This document is accessible 103 Johnson Controls, 2016. ‘‘Johnson Controls compressors, such as reciprocating, at http://www.achrnews.com/articles/126828- Advances Environmental Sustainability with screw, scroll or rotary types. Positive airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo-refrigerant-to- Chiller Platforms Compatible with Low GWP displacement chillers are applied in cool-new-john-lewis-store. Refrigerants.’’ January 20, 2016. http://www.johnson similar situations as centrifugal chillers, 94 Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This controls.com/media-center/news/press-releases/ document is accessible at http://www.benndorf- 2016/01/20/advanced-environmental- primarily for commercial comfort AC, hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/ sustainability-with-chiller-platforms-compatible- except that positive displacement geoclima_broschure.pdf. with-low-gwp-refrigerants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86814 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

displacement chillers in section intention to use R-452B in ‘‘small refrigerants from acceptable to VI.A.4.b.i.(c) of the proposed rule (81 FR chillers’’ as well as other products.104 unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- 22846; April 18, 2016), noting for Johnson Controls also announced that 134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC- instance that Trane introduced a series they were offering multiple positive 245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R- of positive displacement chillers offered displacement chillers, covering their 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), with R-513A and that UTC had installed entire line of screw chillers, with the R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R- 105 a screw chiller using HFO-1234ze(E). choice of R-513A refrigerant. It was 417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, reported that UTC chose HFO-1234ze(E) R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R- Since then, EPA has become aware of 106 for their global line of screw chillers. 507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and additional demonstrations, availability Blue Box has designed its Kappa Rev THR-03. We also proposed narrowed and announcements regarding range of screw chillers specifically for use limits for HFC-134a and R-404A for alternative refrigerants for use in HFO-1234ze(E).107 This refrigerant is positive displacement chillers. For also available in positive displacement certain centrifugal chillers. In this example, in their comments, Ingersoll chillers from Geoclima.108 action, we are finalizing the status Rand noted their commitment to changes and narrowed use limits that transition its entire chiller portfolio, b. What is EPA’s final decision? we proposed with no changes. The including positive displacement screw For new centrifugal chillers, EPA change of status determinations for new and scroll chillers, before the end of proposed to change the status as of centrifugal chillers are summarized in 2018. They separately announced their January 1, 2024, of the following Table 5.

TABLE 5—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS

End-use Substitutes Listing status

Centrifugal Chillers (new FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2024, except where al- only). 236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R- lowed under a narrowed use limit. 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. Centrifugal Chillers (new HFC-134a ...... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military only). marine vessels, as of January 1, 2024. Centrifugal Chillers (new HFC-134a and R-404A ...... Acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for human- only). rated spacecraft and related support equipment, as of January 1, 2024.

For new positive displacement 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R- certain positive displacement chillers. chillers, EPA proposed to change as of 407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, In this action, we are finalizing the January 1, 2024 the status of the R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R- status changes and narrowed use limits following refrigerants from acceptable to 434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 that we proposed with no changes. The unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR- change of status determinations for new 134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/ 03. We also proposed narrowed use positive displacement chillers are 600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/ limits for HFC-134a and R-404A for summarized in Table 6.

TABLE 6—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS

End-use Substitutes Listing status

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

104 Ingersoll Rand, undated. ‘‘Ingersoll Rand Refrigerants.’’ January 20, 2016. This document is refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/10003440. Innovates HVAC Portfolio Using accessible at http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/ article?blocktitle=News&contentID=15773. Next Generation, Low Global Warming media-center/news/press-releases/2016/01/20/ 107 Cooling Post, 2015. ‘‘Blue Box offers R1234ze Refrigerant, R-452B.’’ This document is accessible advanced-environmental-sustainability-with- chiller option.’’ April 29, 2015. This document is at http://company.ingersollrand.com/content/dam/ chiller-platforms-compatible-with-low-gwp- accessible at http://www.coolingpost.com/world- ir-corp/documents/pdf/2016-DR55-Update-Release- refrigerants. news/blue-box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/. FINAL.pdf. 106 RAC, 2016. ‘‘Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze 108 Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This 105 Johnson Controls, 2016. ‘‘Johnson Controls refrigerants for global chiller range.’’ February 26, document is accessible at http://www.benndorf- Advances Environmental Sustainability with 2016. This document is accessible at http://www. hildebrand.eu/sites/default/files/fabrikate/pdf/ Chiller Platforms Compatible with Low GWP racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze- geoclima_broschure.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86815

i. How do these unacceptable concerning data on the SNAP criteria would substitute for all compounds it refrigerants compare to other (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, could replace, the impact on global refrigerants for these end-uses with flammability) for acceptable alternatives atmospheric ozone abundance would be respect to SNAP criteria? as well as those we are finding statistically insignificant.114 R-514A has unacceptable for new centrifugal an ODP of approximately 0.00006, lower Other refrigerants for new centrifugal chillers may be found in the docket for than that of R-1233zd(E) and chillers not subject to this action are this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– comparable to HFC-134a’s calculated HFO-1234ze(E), HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON 0663). ODP of less than 0.000015,115 which has A, IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, R-514A,109 For new centrifugal chillers, the generally been described as zero by EPA R-717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon refrigerants we are listing as and in common practice. Thus, the dioxide), THR-02, and trans-1-chloro- unacceptable have an insignificant ODP. acceptable alternatives have ODPs lower 3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.110 In the Acceptable refrigerants HFO-1234ze(E), than or of the same practical effect to proposed rule and SNAP Acceptability HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R- the ODPs of the alternatives which EPA Determination 31, EPA provided 1233zd(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-514A, R- is listing as unacceptable, and lower information on the environmental and 717 (ammonia), R-744 (carbon dioxide), than the ODPs of ODS historically used health risks presented by the and THR-02 also have an insignificant in this end-use. alternatives that are being found ODP. The alternative refrigerant R- The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable compared with 1233zd(E) has an ODP of 0.00024 to unacceptable through this action have alternatives listed as acceptable (81 FR 0.00034.112 113 Estimates of this GWPs ranging from about 920 to 9,810. 22842, April 18, 2016; and 81 FR compound’s potential to deplete the As shown in Table 7, alternatives 32242–45, May 23, 2016). In addition, a ozone layer indicate that even with acceptable for this end-use not subject technical support document 111 that worst-case estimates of emissions, to this action have GWPs ranging from provides the Federal Register citations which assume that this compound zero to 630.

TABLE 7—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW CENTRIFUGAL CHILLERS 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

HFO-1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 .... 0–630 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON A, IKON B, R-514A, THR-02 ...... 7–560 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. HFC-134a, HFC-245fa ...... 1,030–1,430 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, THR-03 ...... 920–1,220 Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-423A, HFC-227ea ...... 1,770–3,220 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/ 1,985–3,250 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A. R- 438A, RS-44 (2003 composition). HFC-236fa, R-404A, R-507A ...... 3,920–9,810 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 2 HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, 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 in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

One of the refrigerant blends not VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA definition for the purpose of developing subject to this action (THR-02), as well to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. as several of the substitutes for which definition of VOC. In the actions where The refrigerants listed as acceptable we are changing the listing from EPA listed these refrigerants as and not subject to this action are highly acceptable to unacceptable, include acceptable, EPA concluded none of volatile and typically evaporate or small amounts of R-290 (propane), R- these refrigerants in this end-use pose partition to air, rather than 600 (n-butane), or other substances that significantly greater risk to ground-level contaminating surface waters. Their are VOCs. These amounts are small and ozone formation than other alternative effects on aquatic life are expected to be for this end-use are not expected to refrigerants that do not meet the small and pose no greater risk of aquatic contribute significantly to ground level definition of VOC under CAA or ecosystem effects than those of the ozone formation.116 HFO-1336mzz(Z) regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or refrigerants for which we are changing and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene that are specifically excluded from that the listing from acceptable to (constituents of R-514A) are considered unacceptable for this end-use.

109 In SNAP Determination 31 (81 FR 32241; May Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of 23, 2016), EPA found acceptable a blend of 74.7 Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, percent by weight HFO-1336mzz(Z) and 25.3 112 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. percent by weight trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. The ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential 115 The ODP of HFC-134a was estimated to be less Standing Standard Project Committee updating Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of than 1.5 × 10¥5 using a theoretical 2-dimensional ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 has proposed assigning Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, model. Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. this blend a designation of R-514A, which is how Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. R. Jensen, S. Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and we refer to it throughout section VI.A.5 of this rule. 113 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric S. Solomon. 1994. Do hydrofluorocarbons destroy 110 ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 designates this Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71–75. Available chemical as R-1233zd(E), which is how we refer to 1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- online at http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-552/011- it throughout section VI.A.5 of this rule. dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ 552.html. 111 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. 116 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of 114 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86816 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

With the exceptions of HFO-1234ze(E) human health and the environment was unacceptable, and because the GWPs for and R-717, all other refrigerants listed as not significantly greater than the other the refrigerants we proposed to list as acceptable and those we are listing as alternatives found acceptable. This unacceptable are significantly higher unacceptable, are not flammable. HFO- conclusion was based on the and thus pose significantly greater risk, 1234ze(E) is nonflammable at standard assumption that the regulated we are listing the following refrigerants temperature and pressure using the community adheres to OSHA as unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, standard test method ASTM E681; regulations on such use as well as HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ however, at higher temperatures it is standard refrigeration practices, such as 134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/ mildly flammable. It is classified as a the adherence to ASHRAE Standard 15 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, Class 2L (mild flammability, low and the International Institute of R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R- burning velocity) refrigerant under the Ammonia Refrigeration (IIAR) Standard 421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, standard ASHRAE 34 (2013). Our 2,117 which are utilized by local R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS- assessment and listing decision (77 FR authorities when setting their own 44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and 47768; August 10, 2012) found that the building and safety requirements. THR-03. overall risk, including the risk due to R-514A is designed for use in low- For new positive displacement this mild flammability at elevated pressure centrifugal chillers and has the chillers, other alternatives that are listed temperature, is not significantly greater same toxicity rating as HCFC-123, as acceptable and not subject to this than for other refrigerants or for the which has and continues to be used action pose lower overall risk to human refrigerants we are listing as safely in such chillers. Because these health and the environment than the unacceptable. refrigerants operate in low-pressure refrigerants we are listing as The toxicity of the refrigerants we are chillers only, any leaks are more likely unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants listing as unacceptable is comparable to to cause air to enter the chiller, rather for new positive displacement chillers that of other alternatives that are than refrigerant to escape. Exposure is include: HFO-1234ze(E), HFO- acceptable in this end-use, with the further reduced by requirements set 1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-450A, R-513A, exception of R-717 and R-514A. R-717 is forth in ASHRAE Standard 15, which is R-514A, R-717, R-744, and THR-02. In of a higher toxicity than the other often cited in building codes. the proposed rule and SNAP acceptable refrigerants and is classified Specifically, Occupant Exposure Limits Acceptability Determination 31, EPA as a B refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 and Refrigerant Concentration Limits for provided information on the (2013). See section VI.A.4.a.iii.(b) of the B1 refrigerants—specified in ASHRAE environmental and health risks proposed rule (81 FR 22843; April 18, Standard 34–2013 and mandated by presented by the alternatives that are 2016) for a discussion on the long ASHRAE Standard 15 and building being found unacceptable compared history of use of R-717 and our original codes—are lower than for A1 with other available alternatives listed decision finding it acceptable in new refrigerants, and these limits must be as acceptable (81 FR 22846; April 18, centrifugal chillers. The use of R-717, observed in chiller operations. EPA’s 2016 and 81 FR 32242–32245; May 23, also known as ammonia, and the risks risk screen 118 found that for a typical- 2016). In addition, a technical support it might present are controlled through size chiller using R-514A, even under document 119 that provides the Federal industry standards, code requirements conservative assumptions, the estimated Register citations of actions in which and other regulations. In the original 15-minute time-weighted average we provide information on the SNAP SNAP rule, EPA noted ‘‘[a]mmonia [R- exposure would be well below (less criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, 717] has been used as a medium to low than 12 percent of) the corresponding flammability) for acceptable alternatives temperature refrigerant in vapor limit. The other acceptable alternatives for new positive displacement chillers, compression cycles for more than 100 listed previously that are included in as well as those we are finding years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent ASHRAE 34 (2013) are classified as A unacceptable, may be found in the refrigerant properties, a characteristic (lower toxicity) refrigerants. For further docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric information, including EPA’s risk OAR–2015–0663). risks, and low cost. It is, however, screens and risk assessments as well as For new positive displacement mildly flammable and toxic, although it information from the submitters of the chillers, the refrigerants that we are is not a cumulative poison. OSHA substitutes, see docket EPA–HQ–OAR– listing as unacceptable have standards specify a 15 minute short- 2015–0663. insignificant ODPs and have GWPs term exposure limit of 35 ppm for In summary, for new centrifugal ranging from about 920 to 3,990. As ammonia [R-717].’’ (53 FR 13072; March chillers, because the risks other than shown in Table 8, other alternatives that 18, 1994). In that rule, we found R-717 GWP are not significantly different for we are not listing as unacceptable in acceptable for use in centrifugal chillers, the other available alternatives than for this end-use have GWPs ranging from concluding that its overall risk to those we proposed to list as zero to 630.

TABLE 8—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 ...... 0–630 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. HFO-1336mzz(Z), IKON B, R-514A, THR-02 ...... 7–560 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. HFC-134a ...... 1,430 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, SP34E, THR-03 ...... 920–1,410 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes4 ...... Unacceptable. HFC-227ea, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A ...... 1,770–3,220 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable.

117 ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia 118 ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in 119 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- Refrigeration (IIAR) Standard 2–2008 (Addendum Chillers Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/trans-1,2- Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of B)—American National Standard for Equipment, dichloroethylene blend (74.7/25.3) (OpteonTM Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Design, & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia XP30). Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Mechanical Refrigerating Systems. Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86817

TABLE 8—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT CHILLERS 12—Continued

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55/ 1,810–3,250 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R- 434A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition). R-404A, R-507A ...... 3,920–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3 The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

One of the refrigerant blends not decision (77 FR 47768; August 10, 2012) available refrigerants in this end-use. subject to this action (THR-02), as well found that the overall risk, including the For further information, including as several of the substitutes for which risk due to this mild flammability at EPA’s risk screens and risk assessments we are changing the listing from elevated temperature, is not as well as information from the acceptable to unacceptable, include significantly greater than for other submitters of the substitutes, see docket small amounts of R-290 (propane), R- refrigerants or for the refrigerants we are EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663. 600 (butane), or other substances that listing as unacceptable. In summary, for positive are VOCs. These amounts are small and R-717 (ammonia) is mildly flammable displacement chillers, because the risks for this end-use are not expected to with a low flame speed; it is classified other than GWP are not significantly contribute significantly to ground level as a 2L refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 different for the other available ozone formation.120 HFO-1336mzz(Z) (2013). R-717 has a long history of use alternatives than for those we proposed and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene as a refrigerant in positive displacement to list as unacceptable, and because the (constituents of R-514A) are considered chillers, especially in water-cooled GWPs for the refrigerants we proposed VOCs; the producer has petitioned EPA screw chillers, and other applications. to list as unacceptable are significantly to exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the In our evaluation finding R-717 higher and thus pose significantly definition of VOC. In the actions where acceptable in this end-use, EPA noted greater risk, we are listing the following EPA listed these refrigerants as ‘‘[a]mmonia [R-717] has been used as a refrigerants as unacceptable: FOR12A, acceptable, EPA concluded that none of medium to low temperature refrigerant FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, the refrigerants in this end-use pose in vapor compression cycles for more R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/ significantly greater risk to ground-level than 100 years. Ammonia [R-717] has 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- ozone formation than other alternative excellent refrigerant properties, a 404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are characteristic pungent odor, no long- R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- specifically excluded from the term atmospheric risks, and low cost. It 424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R- definition of VOC under CAA is, however, mildly flammable and 507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) toxic, although it is not a cumulative and THR-03. addressing the development of SIPs to poison. Ammonia [R-717] may be used safely if existing OSHA and ASHRAE ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military attain and maintain the NAAQS. Marine Vessels and Human-Rated The refrigerants not subject to this standards are followed’’ (61 FR 47015). With the exception of R-717, the Spacecraft and Related Support action are highly volatile and typically Equipment evaporate or partition to air, rather than toxicity of the refrigerants we are listing contaminating surface waters. Their as unacceptable is comparable to that of EPA is establishing a narrowed use effects on aquatic life are expected to be other alternatives that are acceptable in limit that would allow continued use of small and pose no greater risk of aquatic this end-use. R-717, a refrigerant we are HFC-134a in centrifugal and positive or ecosystem effects than those of the not listing as unacceptable, is of a displacement chillers for military refrigerants that are subject to the status higher toxicity than some other marine vessels as of January 1, 2024. change for this end-use. refrigerants and is classified as a B EPA is also establishing a narrowed use With the exception of HFO-1234ze(E) refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). limit that would allow continued use of and R-717, all other refrigerants that See section VI.A.4.b.iii.(b) of the HFC-134a and R-404A in centrifugal have been listed as acceptable, proposed rule (81 FR 22847; April 18, and positive displacement chillers for including those for which we are now 2016) for a discussion on the long human-rated spacecraft and related changing the status to unacceptable, are history of use of R-717 and our original support equipment applications as of not flammable. HFO-1234ze(E) is decision finding it acceptable in new January 1, 2024. See section VI.A.4.a.iv nonflammable at standard temperature positive displacement chillers. and VI.A.4.b.iv of the proposed rule (81 and pressure using the standard test However, as we provided in listing it as FR 22844; April 18, 2016) for a method ASTM E681; however, at higher acceptable, if used consistent with discussion of the reasons for these temperatures it is mildly flammable. It OSHA regulations, as well as standard narrowed use limits. EPA responds to is classified as a Class 2L (mild refrigeration practices, such as the comments regarding the narrowed use flammability, low burning velocity) adherence to ASHRAE Standard 15 and limits in section VI.A.5.c.v. refrigerant under the standard ASHRAE the International Institute of Ammonia Under these narrowed use limits, the 34 (2013). Our assessment and listing Refrigeration (IIAR) Standard 2, which end users will need to ascertain that are utilized by local authorities when other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety 120 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact setting their own building and safety of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level requirements, it does not pose requirements, and they would also need Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. significantly greater risk than other to document the results of their

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86818 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

analysis. See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Users progression from the release of a model recover these losses by redesigning and are expected to undertake a thorough code until adoption by State authorities, recertifying centrifugal chillers. These technical investigation of alternatives to and that the majority of States are losses are considered small and only the otherwise restricted substitute. currently using either the most recent pertain to ‘‘drop-in’’ conditions; it is Although users are not required to (2015) model code or are only one cycle expected that any losses can be report the results of their investigations behind (2012). While EPA does not recovered by designing new chillers to to EPA, users must document these believe the status change date must utilize those refrigerants, as commenters results and retain them in their files for occur after all such authorities have indicate they expect to do. Furthermore, the purpose of demonstrating adopted a new model code, we are several alternatives were found to compliance. This information includes allowing a reasonable time to provide exceed current efficiency levels even in descriptions of: that opportunity where such code these theoretical conditions. While • Process or product in which the adoption would facilitate the some commenters provided a general substitute is needed; introduction of chillers with alternative description of the steps that must be • Substitutes examined and rejected; refrigerants. Comments also indicate taken in this redesign process, none • Reason for rejection of other that, if the appropriate codes are not provided a detailed timeline of how alternatives, e.g., performance, technical adopted, there are alternative means and long each step would take and how or safety standards; and/or measures that may be taken to allow the multiple models can be redesigned in • Anticipated date other substitutes use of alternatives otherwise not parallel during the proposed timeframe. will be available and projected time for allowed. A change of status date of Therefore, we disagree that efficiency switching. January 1, 2024, is necessary to provide concerns would support a later change iii. When will the status change? an expeditious yet reasonable time for of status date. this process to occur. The status change Commenters who suggested a later EPA proposed and is finalizing a date is also necessary to allow status change date were also concerned status change date of January 1, 2024, continued development of designs of about the need to update industry for new centrifugal chillers and new new centrifugal and positive standards and building codes, and positive displacement chillers, except as displacement chillers using an adoption of those codes, specifically for otherwise allowed under a narrowed acceptable alternative, covering the flammable alternatives. For centrifugal use limit. The status change date is wide range of capacity and design types chillers, they stated such changes must based on comments and our (low/medium pressure, indoor/outdoor, take place for HFO-1234ze(E), a mildly understanding of the needs for industry etc.) that exist in the market, and allow flammable A2L refrigerant, to be used. standards, model codes, and adoption of those chillers to be tested and certified. They also identified that refrigerant and those items to allow for a range of EPA is aware that some equipment has several other A2L refrigerants for alternatives, including flammable been introduced with acceptable positive displacement chillers, and alternatives, in both types of chillers alternatives, as discussed above in likewise indicated that standards and addressed. As pointed out by AHRI and section VI.A.5.a.ii, and that additional codes actions hindered the availability NRDC in their joint comment on the research and development is underway of chillers with those alternatives. EPA proposed rule, for chillers with with these and other possible found several examples where alternatives not subject to a status alternatives. EPA responds to comments acceptable alternatives have been used change to be used ‘‘effectively and regarding the status change date in in both centrifugal and positive safely, the appropriate mitigation must section VI.A.5.c.ii. displacement chillers, and received be developed, proven, and finally Some commenters suggested an information that indicates that industry adopted by safety standards. Only then earlier date for all or parts of the standards are expected to be updated as can states and municipalities adopt centrifugal and positive displacement early as 2017 and that model building building codes reflecting the updated chiller market, suggesting status change codes would be updated possibly in the safety standards.’’ The Agency dates as early as 2019. While EPA noted 2018 cycle or most likely the 2021 cycle. understands that relevant industry that multiple chillers with alternative By establishing a 2024 status change, we standards and model building codes are refrigerants are already available on the allow time for adoption of those model likely to change in the 2017 to 2021 market now, and we expect more to codes by States and other jurisdictional timeframe, and that such changes will become so by that date, we did not find authorities. In addition, commenters be a necessary step for the acceptable evidence that a significant portion of the noted that there are other alternative alternatives feasibly to be used in the chiller market could transition at an means and measures by which the use chiller market. These standards and earlier date than the date we are of a flammable refrigerant, if so chosen codes include ASHRAE 15, UL 1995, UL finalizing. Further, EPA did not receive by the manufacturer, in a centrifugal or 60335–2–40, and the International enough technical detail to support positive displacement chiller may be Building Code (IBC). EPA also dividing the centrifugal chiller end-use permitted, even if that refrigerant were recognizes that even once standards and or the positive displacement chiller end- not otherwise allowed under a model building codes are changed, time use so that different change of status particular State or locality’s existing will be required for locations to adopt dates could apply to different portions code requirements. such codes allowing for the use of of the end-uses. chillers using the alternative Commenters who suggested a later c. How is EPA responding to comments? refrigerants, many of which may not status change date had concerns EPA received several comments from currently be allowed to be used based regarding their ability to maintain individuals and organizations with on existing codes. While some non- current energy efficiency levels with various interests in the refrigerants flammable, code-acceptable refrigerants alternative refrigerants. The data industry. Comments addressed EPA’s are available for some of the chiller provided by commenters, however, proposed status change date of January market, the use of other acceptable showed only minor theoretical losses of 1, 2024, for new centrifugal chillers and alternatives would require code changes efficiency for some alternatives, up to new positive displacement chillers. or exceptions made by code officials. about four percent. These commenters Some commenters, including Chemours, Comments indicated that there is a suggested more time is needed to EIA, Honeywell, and Ingersoll Rand

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86819

supported EPA’s proposed status change chillers installed on or after January 1, likewise provided information on the date. These commenters identified a 2024,’’ and did not require ‘‘units that first six of these refrigerants in positive range of potential alternatives but are newly installed with HFC-134a after displacement chillers. Additional generally agreed that new centrifugal the final rule becomes effective, but information regarding the compressor chillers using these alternatives needed prior to January 1, 2024, to retrofit those displacement to utilize these some time to be brought to the market. ‘existing’ units by January 1, 2024.’’ alternatives was also provided. UTC Other commenters opposed the PSEG stated that ‘‘there are few viable noted the flammability of R-290 and felt proposed status changes or suggested zero or low GWP refrigerants available that R-718 and R-744 ‘‘do not provide a different change of status dates from the for use in HFC-134a large tonnage long-term solution or require additional one EPA proposed, such as 2021 and equipment’’ and that highly flammable work to make such refrigerants feasible 2025. Other comments we received refrigerants and both R-717 and R-744 in chillers.’’ UTC provided information related to energy efficiency, industry are not viable for nuclear applications, regarding the application and efficiency standards and codes, and the narrowed noting that ‘‘the equipment must be of the other refrigerants and said some use limits for military and spacecraft designed specifically for the gas.’’ of these that could be used ‘‘are short- uses. Response: The status changes to the term, but less efficient’’ options. They Commenters included Boeing, centrifugal and positive displacement also indicated others are ‘‘longer-term,’’ Eastman Chemical Company, chiller end-uses in this rule apply to and identified HFO-1234ze(E) as a Honeywell, Chemours, Johnson ‘‘new’’ equipment installed on or after specific example but also noted its Controls, Ingersoll Rand, UTC, PSEG the status change date of January 1, flammability. They stated that R-452B Services Corporation, Arkema, the 2024. EPA has historically issued was not a viable option to replace HFC- Alliance, National Association of separate decisions under the SNAP 134a but did indicate it was under Manufacturers (NAM), AHRI, EIA, program for new equipment in a given consideration as one of several R-410A NRDC, IGSD, NASA, and DoD. end-use and retrofit (i.e., the alternatives, all of which are flammable. As stated above, EPA received many replacement of the refrigerant with an Response: EPA interprets this comments discussing ‘‘chillers’’ or alternate refrigerant) in the same end- comment to apply to both centrifugal ‘‘HFC-134a alternatives’’ that did not use. This action changes the status of and positive displacement chillers. EPA specify whether the comments applied refrigerants for new chillers created on thanks the commenter for this specifically to centrifugal chillers, or after the status change date; it does information. This information shows positive displacement chillers, or both. not change the status of refrigerants that much is known about these We have grouped comments together currently acceptable for retrofitting refrigerants and how they could be and responded to the issues raised by chillers. Thus, concerns about employed in chillers. UTC indicates a the comments in the sections that retrofitting ‘‘HFC-134a’’ equipment are desire to transition to what it considered follow, or in a separate Response to not pertinent for this action. ‘‘longer-term’’ solutions, but did not Comments document which is included Comment: EIA supported EPA’s provide adequate information to in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– proposal to change the status of high- indicate why their recommended status OAR–2015–0663). Our responses should GWP refrigerants to unacceptable for change date of January 1, 2025, would be considered as equally applicable to centrifugal and positive displacement provide such time but the proposed both end-uses unless otherwise chillers, mentioning specifically status change date of January 1, 2024, specified. refrigerants HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407C, would not. As discussed in section R-410A and R-507A. Chemours also VI.A.5.b.iii above, EPA has established i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed supported EPA’s proposed status a change of status date that considers Comment: Eastman requested that changes for both chiller end-uses, and the need for standards and model codes EPA clarify whether the status changes identified several alternatives and what to change to incorporate requirements under the chiller end-uses apply to the they would replace, including R-513A for flammable refrigerants as well as IPR end-use. Eastman pointed out that (HFC-134a replacement), R-452B (R- additional time for States and localities since the inception of the SNAP 410A replacement), R-449A (R-404A to adopt such codes as part of their program, EPA has separated these into replacement) and HFO-1234yf (HFC- requirements. different end-uses. 134a replacement). Comment: UTC indicated that HFO- Response: EPA confirms that this Response: EPA thanks the 1234ze(E) is flammable and therefore action will change the status of commenters for their support of the mitigation is required and ‘‘appropriate refrigerants for new positive proposed rule. Regarding the safety standards and approved building displacement chillers and new alternatives identified by Chemours, codes must be in place before it can be centrifugal chillers and does not affect EPA agrees that R-513A is an acceptable used.’’ Comments submitted as CBI refrigerants listed under the separate alternative for centrifugal and positive indicate that a chiller using HFO- IPR end-use. displacement chillers. EPA has received 1234ze(E) has been introduced in Comment: Eastman raised concerns submissions for R-449A and R-452B for Europe and that the potential about retrofits to existing equipment, both centrifugal and positive flammability of the refrigerant was specifically for ‘‘any of these systems displacement chillers and the Agency is addressed through added mitigation with remaining useful life [that] are reviewing them for these and other end- requirements sufficient for A2 (and scheduled for retrofits due to previous uses. We have not received a hence A2L) refrigerants. As noted in phase-outs of refrigerants such as R-22,’’ submission specifically for HFO-1234yf section VI.A.5.a.iii above, Honeywell and pointed out issues related to using in chillers. stated that ‘‘[s]everal manufacturers certain refrigerants listed as acceptable Comment: UTC provided information currently offer high-efficiency chillers, for the chiller end-uses ‘‘to replace the regarding various refrigerants that are air-cooled (outdoor) and water-cooled one the [IPR] system was originally listed as acceptable or that may be (indoor), using HFO-1234ze(E) in sizes designed to use.’’ PSEG submitted under research for use in centrifugal ranging from tens of tons to hundreds of similar comments, requesting that EPA chillers, specifically HFO-1234ze(E), R- tons’’ and listed some examples, ‘‘clarify its intent that the prohibition of 290, R-450A, R-513A, R-452B, R-718, R- including some centrifugal chillers and HFC-134a in chillers applies to new 744, R-1233zd(E) and R-515A. They some positive displacement chillers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86820 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Response: EPA interprets these Honeywell notes, and as we cite in one or more earlier change of status comments as applying to both section VI.A.5.a.iii above, other dates for all or portions of the chiller centrifugal and positive displacement manufacturers have also produced end use did not provide enough chillers. This information indicates that centrifugal chillers using R-1233zd(E). technical detail to conclude that such manufacturers and installers have been These will serve part of the chiller dates are achievable for the chillers that successful in introducing chillers with market but do not satisfy the full would be subject to such dates. Further, alternative flammable refrigerants in market, for instance where a smaller EPA did not receive enough information some instances, and that building codes tonnage, positive displacement chiller is regarding how extensive code changes allow for such installations under required. would (or would not) be specifically for certain circumstances. However, as Comment: Ingersoll Rand stated that air-cooled outdoor chillers and thus we discussed in section VI.A.5.b.iii above, they will have small tonnage low- do not believe that an earlier status EPA agrees that for flammable pressure centrifugal chillers under their change date for that portion of the refrigerants to become more widely used Trane brand using R-514A available in chiller market as suggested by across the multiple applications and 2017. Honeywell and EIA is supported. EPA configurations where centrifugal and Response: EPA thanks the commenter notes that nonflammable (A1) and positive displacement chillers are for this comment indicating the flammable (A2L and B2L) alternatives deployed, standards and model codes development of small tonnage low- are acceptable for both centrifugal and need to be revised and the States and pressure centrifugal chillers using R- positive displacement chillers. localities must adopt such codes. Our 514A, which we cite in section We also recognize that it is important status change date of January 1, 2024, VI.A.5.a.iii. under the SNAP program to not limit provides the time necessary for this to Comment: EIA suggested that EPA end users to a single choice. EPA has occur. As discussed above in section ‘‘signal the likelihood’’ of finding identified several alternatives that are VI.A.5.a.iii, multiple companies have alternatives with GWPs above 600 acceptable for centrifugal chillers and introduced chillers using HFO- unacceptable, including R-450A and R- likewise positive displacement chillers. 1234ze(E). Comments indicate that this 513A. By establishing the same change of refrigerant is already being employed in Response: EPA cannot, at this time, status date for all chillers, chillers and that steps to address the project what actions it may take in the manufacturers will be able to choose flammability of the refrigerant in some future. Moreover, any proposal to from the full list of acceptable applications are known. Thus, this change the status of R-450A and R-513A alternatives the refrigerant(s) and chiller refrigerant is one of the many options in the chiller end-uses would need to type(s) that best meet their specific that can be utilized by manufacturers to occur through a separate notice and needs, and customers will be able to develop chillers using acceptable comment rulemaking in which EPA apply the particular type(s) of chillers refrigerants by the January 1, 2024, performs a full comparative assessment using the particular acceptable status change date. In addition to HFO- using the SNAP criteria. alternative that best meet their needs. 1234ze(E), other flammable refrigerants ii. Change of Status Date Individual manufacturers may have been used, especially in positive determine for themselves which displacement chillers. For instance, in Comment: Honeywell supported a alternative(s) to use in their particular the proposed rule (81 FR 22847; April January 1, 2024, status change date for equipment and given the variety of 18, 2016), EPA noted that ‘‘R-717 has a chillers but felt that certain types could alternatives available there may not be long history of use as a refrigerant in transition sooner. They noted that the a single ‘‘widely-accepted’’ replacement, positive displacement chillers, discussion regarding the need for even for a specific type of chiller; there especially in water-cooled screw building codes to change to accept 2L may be several refrigerants and chiller chillers, and other applications.’’ flammable refrigerants was most types competing in the market. For Comment: Honeywell stated that applicable to water-cooled indoor additional comments regarding building ‘‘HFO-1233zd(E), has a GWP of one, is chiller installations and that ‘‘for the codes and standards, please see section non-flammable and more energy most part this issue does not impact the VI.A.c.iv. efficient than HFC-134a, and chillers installation of air-cooled chillers that Comment: UTC argued for a status utilizing HFO-1233zd(E) are available are installed outdoors.’’ Based on that, change date no earlier than January 1, from at least three manufacturers,’’ Honeywell believed that EPA could 2025. One factor that they cited was that identifying Trane (a brand of Ingersoll adopt an earlier transition date for air- HFO-1234ze(E) ‘‘is a new HFO.’’ Rand), Carrier (a brand of UTC), and cooled (outdoor) chillers. EIA suggested Regarding this chemical, UTC stated Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. a staged transition with a change of that it has ‘‘approximately equal Response: EPA thanks the commenter status date of January 1, 2019, for air- performance’’ to HFC-134a and for this information regarding R- cooled chillers and January 1, 2021, for indicated that changes to equipment 1233zd(E). The proposed rule (81 FR water-cooled chillers. The California Air designs are required to use it. UTC also 22842; April 18, 2016) noted that one Resources Board (CARB) recommended stated that ‘‘typical development manufacturer had introduced a chiller that all chillers be subject to a January projects require 2–3 years to complete,’’ using this refrigerant.121 That same 1, 2021, status change date. Arkema but indicated that HFO-1234ze(E) company now offers all of their large suggested a 2021 transition date for R- ‘‘require[s] major redesign work.’’ tonnage low-pressure centrifugal 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, Commenting on positive displacement chillers using this refrigerant.122 As and R-407F. chillers, EIA stated that ‘‘[t]he first HFO- Response: EPA interprets these 1234ze chillers were installed back in 121 Cooling Post, 2014. ‘‘Trane first with 1233zd comments as applying to both 2011 and production uptake of HFO- chiller.’’ June 30, 2014. This document is accessible centrifugal and positive displacement at http://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/trane- 1234ze chillers has been increasing chillers. The commenters supporting first-with-1233zd-chiller/. rapidly’’ noting two major 122 Trane, 2016. ‘‘Trane Announces Significant Centrifugal Chiller Line Expansion and Services for commercial/north-america/us/en/about-us/ manufacturers—Carrier (a brand of the United States and Canada.’’ June 15, 2016. This newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal-chiller-line- UTC) and Trane (a brand of Ingersoll document is accessible at http://www.trane.com/ expansion.html. Rand)—using that refrigerant in chillers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86821

Response: EPA interprets UTC’s sensor and alarms will be required along 1, 2024, change of status date for both comment as applying to both centrifugal with state and local adoption of centrifugal and positive displacement and positive displacement chillers building and fire code changes’’ to chillers that EPA is establishing in the while EIA’s comment was specific to transition positive displacement final rule should provide sufficient time positive displacement chillers. HFO- chillers. for the activities described by the 1234ze(E) is not a ‘‘new’’ refrigerant—it UTC said that typical development commenters to occur in order to meet was added to ASHRAE Standard 34– projects would require two to three that date. 2010 via addendum i, which was years to complete but also indicated that Comment: In addition to the argument approved by the ASHRAE Standards this time frame could be delayed due to for a change of status date no earlier Committee on June 25, 2011, by the the availability of manufacturer and test than January 1, 2025, UTC suggested ASHRAE Board of Directors on June 29, labs for certification, Johnson Controls that HFC-134a in chillers should remain 2011, and by the ANSI on June 30, 2011. indicated a project duration of two to acceptable until states and localities EPA listed it acceptable for centrifugal nine years for low-pressure and adopted the ‘‘relevant building, fire and and positive displacement chillers on medium-pressure chillers. AHRI also mechanical codes that may be August 10, 2012. As discussed estimated it would take two to nine necessary.’’ The commenter suggested a previously in section VI.A.5.b.iii and as years to commercialize including time narrowed use limit could apply. UTC EIA noted, multiple companies have to reengineer and re-optimize chillers to also provided a table indicating the utilized HFO-1234ze(E) in chillers to use alternative refrigerants. Ingersoll number of states adopting various date. Finally, we note that Carrier Rand noted their commitment to editions of the IBC, the International Corporation, a brand of UTC, has at least transition its entire chiller portfolio, Fire Code, and the International six HFO-1234ze(E) chiller installations including positive displacement screw Mechanical Code. UTC indicated a in Switzerland.123 and scroll chillers, before the end of desire for ‘‘regulatory certainty’’ and an Comment: UTC, Johnson Controls and 2018. avoidance of ‘‘balkanization of the AHRI stated that any status change date Response: EPA interprets these market.’’ earlier than January 1, 2025, would not comments as applying (regarding the Response: UTC did not indicate provide the time necessary to transition development process) to both specifically which codes, and to alternatives that remain acceptable. centrifugal and positive displacement specifically which provisions in any UTC stated that ‘‘EPA must take into chillers. Although EPA prefers not to codes, would need to be modified. account certain properties, including use the term ‘‘drop-in,’’ it is sometimes Although EPA recognizes that in general flammability, for refrigerants for which used by various parties to refer to the standards and model codes need to be EPA does not propose to change status’’ circumstance where one refrigerant can developed to allow for the use of A2L (emphasis in the original), such as HFO- be used in place of another without any refrigerants, and that States and 1234ze(E), R-1233zd(E), R-450A and R- modification to the relevant piece of localities need to adopt those model 513A. UTC commented that the refrigeration equipment. EPA recognizes codes or similar requirements, it is not substitutes that remain acceptable for that in many cases designs will need to reasonable to condition the entire centrifugal chillers and for positive be modified to use different refrigerants. market by such actions. As stated above displacement chillers currently utilizing This is expected and was evidenced in section VI.A.5.b.iii, a status change HFC-134a are not ‘‘drop-in’’ refrigerants when centrifugal chillers transitioned date of January 1, 2024, provides a and will require substantial equipment from CFC-11 and CFC-12 to HCFC-123 reasonable amount of time for these redesign to account for displacement and HFC-134a and when positive actions to take place for most if not all changes and changes in cycle efficiency displacement chillers transitioned from States and localities. Where such and heat transfer. For positive CFC-12 and HCFC-22 to HFC-134a, R- actions have not fully occurred, displacement chillers currently utilizing 407C and R-410A. Past experiences manufacturers have the option to offer R-410A, UTC and Johnson Controls said show that such redesigns offer the nonflammable refrigerants for some system changes must be made for A2L opportunity for manufacturers to chiller types, and alternative means and refrigerants, and concluded that all the integrate other changes to improve methods exist to allow for the use of alternatives being investigated for such performance of their products and could A2L refrigerants if needed. use are or would be classified as A2L. offer them competitive advantages in Further, as the table of approvals UTC provided further information on the market. EPA realizes that the degree provided showed, various states are the steps required during redesign. of design changes may vary by the adopting different cycles of codes, some These included steps for ‘‘each chiller refrigerant chosen and more so from dating back to 2003 and others adopting type’’ as well as additional steps for 2L decisions by the manufacturers in the latest 2015 codes. In section flammable refrigerants. To redesign adopting designs for those refrigerants VI.A.5.c.iv below, EPA points to the equipment, UTC said one necessary step and including other design changes concerted effort by DOE, AHRI, and was the development of oils and new during the process. ASHRAE to fund vital research that will materials to be used in the new The information from these establish a more robust fact base about equipment. They also indicated that commenters did not provide sufficient the properties and uses of flammable new components and overall systems detail to determine the time it would refrigerants. The results from this work would need to be requalified by test take to transition all chillers to will help provide the technical laboratories. More generally, UTC acceptable alternatives to serve its knowledge needed to facilitate and indicated that ‘‘different equipment current market. For instance, UTC did accelerate the safe use of flammable redesign, requalification and equipment not indicate whether the two to three refrigerants. EPA finds that conditioning year product development timeframe a status change on code adoption would 123 RAC, 2016. ‘‘Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze applied to just one or multiple products, not only be unnecessary, but would refrigerants for global chiller range.’’ February 26, and if the latter, whether those create the ‘‘balkanization’’ or patchwork 2016. This document is accessible at http:// development projects could overlap and of regulations that UTC said it wanted www.racplus.com/news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze- refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/ occur simultaneously. Johnson Controls to avoid. 10003440.article?blocktitle=News&contentID= and AHRI did not address these Comment: AHRI and NRDC jointly 15773. situations either. However, the January stated that ‘‘[t]he forthcoming redesign

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86822 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

will require modification not only to the equipment, but has provided no detail HCFCs has only more recently started. equipment itself, but also to the as to the actual expected timeframe. We Thus, during the first 15 years of the manufacturing environment, servicing note that a January 1, 2024, change of SNAP program, there was no obligation practices and shipping logistics, and status date will provide the and no incentive for manufacturers to most importantly, to the equipment manufacturer slightly more than seven transition from HCFCs. Therefore, the rooms and buildings in which these years in which to achieve a conversion, pace of transition away from HCFCs equipment may be installed.’’ AHRI and which is on the later side of the time does not reflect the time needed to NRDC recommended a January 1, 2025, they suggest might be needed. In transition away from the substitutes change of status date to allow time for addition, we note that the commenter subject to the change of status. As these modifications to occur. has already announced that the provided in more detail in section Response: EPA interprets these centrifugal and screw chillers they offer, VI.A.5.b.iii, we evaluated the steps it comments as applying to both originally designed for HFC-134a, are would take for manufacturers to centrifugal and positive displacement compatible with R-513A, which is not transition chillers away from the chillers. As discussed in the previous subject to the status change in this substitutes that we are changing the response, EPA recognizes that action.124 listing status to unacceptability, equipment modification and redesigns Comment: AHRI stated that the examining the technical challenges for will be required to use alternatives. The flammability of new refrigerants will that transition and considering the use commenters did not indicate require safety upgrades for of flammable alternatives and the specifically why the other modifications manufacturing and reclamation related need for changes to industry were required, did not provide any facilities. AHRI also indicated that standards and model building codes and detail regarding the time needed for the transition to flammable refrigerants the adoption of those codes. For the identified modifications, whether the involves capital investments that need reasons provided there, we have various steps could be addressed in to be planned well in advance. determined that January 1, 2024, is a parallel or only one after the other in Response: AHRI did not provide any reasonable, but expeditious date for series and why these steps cannot take specific information on the time such a transition. place in time to meet a January 1, 2024, required to prepare these facilities for Comment: The Alliance asked EPA to change of status date. Thus, these flammable refrigerants and how that explain in more detail what technical comments do not support a claim that might affect the proposed change of analysis or timelines would be needed the change of status date should be status date. We note that neither of the to justify a change of status later than January 1, 2025, instead of January 1, two certified reclaimers that commented our lead proposal of January 1, 2024. 2024, for either centrifugal or positive on the proposed rule indicated that Response: EPA interprets this displacement chillers. safety upgrades were needed and that a Comment: Arguing for a January 1, comment as applying to both centrifugal later change of status date should be and positive displacement chillers. EPA 2025, status change date, Johnson established to allow for such upgrades. Controls stated that the alternatives not has not established a specific list of Comment: Johnson Controls stated items that are needed to justify a later subject to status change are not ‘‘drop- that the AHRI/NRDC proposal called for ins’’ for HCFC-123 in low-pressure change of status date. In establishing a a tremendously aggressive transition change of status date, EPA examined the centrifugal chillers and likewise that to away from HFCs in just over eight years transition HFC-134a chillers to low- technical challenges in order to and compared that time period to what determine a reasonable, but expeditious pressure alternatives would require they indicated was over 20 years to redesign of heat exchangers and change of status date. Thus, to support transition chillers from CFCs and a later change of status date, EPA would compressors and take two to nine years HCFCs. They stated that after more than or longer. need additional information indicating 25 years from the signing of the that the information it relied on to Response: As noted above, although Montreal Protocol, there are EPA prefers not to use the term ‘‘drop- support a January 1, 2024, change of manufacturers still using HCFCs in status date was flawed and that in,’’ it is sometimes used by various chillers. AHRI also stated that the last parties to refer to the circumstance additional time was needed to meet the refrigerant transition from ODS has technical challenges of a transition. where one refrigerant can be used in taken 20 years and is still in process. Comment: Arkema provided a list of place of another without any Response: EPA disagrees that a 2024 steps needed for ‘‘product line modification to the relevant piece of status change date is overly aggressive development’’ including ‘‘researching refrigeration equipment. We recognize or that the transition away from CFCs options, risk assessment, analyzing that manufacturers typically redesign and HCFCs provides support that an existing manufacturing capabilities, products to varying extents when over seven-year period for moving away working with component suppliers, transitioning refrigerants in most cases from the use of many HFCs and HFC building test units, testing beta units, to address the unique properties of the blends is insufficient. It is important to updating manufacturing processes new refrigerant that will be used. As an note that the transition away from CFCs (including employee training), building initial matter, EPA’s change of status and HCFCs in the earlier years was due pre-production units, field testing, rule does not limit manufacturers to a phasedown, not a phaseout, of completing the customer approval currently using HFC-134a to convert to CFCs. While based on later regulations process, phasing in production, low-pressure alternatives. Higher- CFCs were phased out of production in disposing of trapped inventory, and pressure alternatives that are not subject 1995, a phaseout in production of to status change may also be considered, training installation and maintenance personnel’’ and ensuring ‘‘products including HFO-1234ze(E), R-450A and 124 Johnson Controls, 2016. ‘‘Johnson Controls R-513A. In addition, manufacturers may Advances Environmental Sustainability with conform to local building codes.’’ For develop and submit to SNAP other Chiller Platforms Compatible with Low GWP new chillers specifically, Arkema alternatives for evaluation. Regardless, Refrigerants.’’ January 20, 2016. http:// suggested a change of status date of www.johnsoncontrols.com/media-center/news/ 2025 for HFC-134a and R-410A, stating the commenter has suggested a wide press-releases/2016/01/20/advanced- timeframe for the time in which it environmental-sustainability-with-chiller-platforms- as their ‘‘[r]ationale’’ that ‘‘HFC-134a is would take manufacturers to convert compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants. used in screw and centrifugal chillers;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86823

[R-]410A is used in smaller chillers, Controls stated that ‘‘the minimum efficiency that may limit customer especially scroll chillers.’’ efficiency of chillers is mandated’’ and demand and drive decisions to repair, Response: EPA interprets this indicated that it is unacceptable to offer and not replace, existing equipment.’’ comment as applying to both centrifugal lower-efficiency equipment to their Response: EPA interprets these and positive displacement chillers. EPA customers. They suggested that any loss comments as applying to both agrees with the commenter’s indication in efficiency might be possibly regained centrifugal and positive displacement of which types of chillers HFC-134a and by increasing the surface area of the heat chillers. EPA recognizes that the energy R-410A are currently used, but this does exchangers and from modifying the efficiency is a significant factor when not provide any rationale for their aerodynamics of compressors. choosing equipment. We also recognize proposed change of status date for these Response: EPA interprets these that the energy efficiency of any given refrigerants. Further, the commenter did comments as applying to both piece of equipment is in part affected by not provide any indication of how the centrifugal and positive displacement the choice of refrigerant and the product line development tasks apply chillers. As discussed in section VII.D.3 particular thermodynamic and specifically to chillers and how they below, energy efficiency is not a specific thermophysical properties that relate to the change of status date criterion under SNAP; however, refrigerant possesses. We also do not proposed. The commenter did not manufactures indicated the desire to believe that the evidence supports that provide any justification to support a maintain or improve efficiency with the change of status will result in end 2025 status change date instead of a alternative refrigerants, and EPA is users needing to choose lower efficiency change of status date of January 1, 2024. supportive of that as well. The equipment. As detailed in the previous comment and response, the substitutes iii. Energy Efficiency information provided shows that some options offer better energy efficiency that will remain available provide both Comment: Information submitted and than refrigerants such as HFC-134a and higher and lower energy efficiencies claimed as CBI compared the full load R-410A currently used in many chillers. than HFC-134a. Also, as noted by the efficiency and the integrated part-load While we agree with the commenters commenter in the previous comment value (IPLV), another measure of who suggest that certain refrigerants and response, there are strategies that efficiency, of several alternatives may have a lower energy efficiency if manufacturers may pursue to mitigate relative to HFC-134a. Similar used as ‘‘drop-ins,’’ (i.e., without against any loses in energy efficiency. information was included for eight equipment modification), energy With respect to UTC’s comment that alternatives relative to R-410A. Given efficiency could be addressed, as some reduced energy efficiency may drive the number of alternatives shown, this commenters recognize, by adjusting decisions to repair rather than replace information appears to be based on design. The change of status date allows existing equipment, EPA does not theoretical calculations (e.g. ‘‘cycle time for such redesign to occur. dictate through the SNAP program calculations’’) or tests of non-optimized It is unclear what the commenter is when a chiller must be replaced rather equipment rather than a sample of referencing when it states that than repaired. Instead, EPA allows the equipment in operation. The estimates ‘‘minimum efficiency of chillers is user to determine when to repair and showed that R-450A, R-513A, and R- mandated.’’ EPA does not mandate when to replace their system. 515A had lower full load efficiencies energy efficiency and, as we noted in than HFC-134a (up to 3.3 percent below) iv. Industry Standards and Codes the proposal (81 FR 22845; April 18, and that R-1233zd(E) and HFO- Comment: UTC stated that 2016), there are no specific DOE 1234ze(E) had higher full load flammability is ‘‘a new risk for comfort requirements for minimum energy efficiencies and IPLVs than HFC-134a cooling’’ and that ‘‘[s]afety cannot be (up to 3.1 percent above). The efficiency for chillers apart from those compromised by setting requirements used in federal government-owned ahead of the [ASHRAE] and [UL] information provided and claimed as 125 CBI also indicated that some refrigerants buildings. It is reasonable to assume standards.’’ UTC, AHRI, and Johnson have better IPLVs (up to 2.3 percent that Johnson Controls’ line of ‘‘over 40 Controls indicated that these standards higher) and some have worse IPLVs (up chiller product families’’ already comes would need to change to allow for the to 2.5 percent lower) than HFC-134a in with varying degrees of energy safe use of alternatives, and that such chillers. Of the eight alternatives efficiency and that as they move changes would only be a first step in compared to R-410A, including for forward to develop systems that comply that process. After that, model building example HFC-32 and R-452B, seven had with the status change there will still be codes would need to incorporate the higher IPLVs (up to 0.7 percent) and all a range of energy efficient products revised standards and then State and eight had higher full load efficiencies available. local jurisdictions would adopt those (up to 3.2 percent). EPA also addresses energy efficiency codes, thereby making the use of new UTC stated that ‘‘the primary in section VII.D.3 in this action and in alternatives viable in those locations. environmental impact (∼95 percent) of sections V.B.6.a, V.C.7, V.D.3.c, and Commenters noted that HFO-1234ze(E) HVAC systems stems from the electric VII.C.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 is flammable and UTC listed eight power needed to operate them, not from rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, 2015). options under consideration to replace refrigerant leaks (which constitute about Comment: UTC indicated generally R-410A in positive displacement five percent of the overall impact).’’ that while it would not face any code chillers and stated that ‘‘[a]ll of these Johnson Controls and AHRI both stated barriers, ‘‘an A1 [i.e., nonflammable] refrigerants are A2L and will require refrigerant may result in reduced energy that 98 percent of the CO2-equivalent and [sic] update of state and local emissions from chillers are the result of codes.’’ AHRI and NRDC jointly said 125 EPA stated in section VI.A.4.a.vi of the the power. Johnson Controls claimed proposed rule (81 FR 22845; April 18, 2016) that ‘‘[m]any promising alternative that medium-pressure options to replace DOE has established efficiency requirements, based refrigerants are mildly flammable HFC-134a in chillers are two to four on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2010, for (especially for R-410A) and currently percent less efficient in ‘‘drop-in’’ chillers used in federal buildings and provided our restricted under product safety understanding of that standard. Since that time, conditions while AHRI stated that some EPA has become aware that such chiller efficiency standards and building codes.’’ The acceptable alternatives ‘‘may be two to requirements are now based on the 2013 version of Alliance indicated ‘‘[t]here has been three percent less efficient.’’ Johnson that standard (80 FR 68749; November 6, 2015). notable progress this year on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

challenge of incorporating the use of a chiller using a nonflammable that particular jurisdiction. Finally, the mildly flammable and flammable low- alternative nor as mentioned the citizen noted two examples where code GWP alternatives into the relevant codes revision of standards to allow the use of changes are being undertaken that and standards.’’ Ingersoll Rand stated flammable refrigerants, the would ‘‘more appropriately address’’ the that ‘‘ASHRAE 15 and UL 60335–2–40 incorporation of those standards into use of A2L refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD are being updated to accommodate A2L model building codes, and the adoption pointed to ‘‘several mechanisms’’ by refrigerants in chillers and are on track of these building codes. which individual building codes may be to be complete by the end of 2017’’ Comment: AHRI and NRDC modified by 2018 to allow for A2L while EIA said ‘‘ASHRAE Standards maintained that ‘‘appropriate mitigation refrigerants to be used. They further and International Code Council (ICC) must be developed, proven, and finally pointed out that even without such code changes required for adopting A2L adopted by safety standards’’ before measures building codes are expected to refrigerants . . . are already proposed they can be used. They said that allow the use of A2L refrigerants if a and are expected to be completed by ‘‘product and safety standards will not ‘‘very high level of ventilation and 2018.’’ AHRI pointed to an be updated until 2018 at the earliest’’ explosion-proof electronics are used.’’ ‘‘unprecedented effort’’—a $5.2 million and that model building codes reflecting They concluded that ‘‘states with old program jointly funded by AHRI, those updates were expected in 2021. codes will not truly be off limits to ASHRAE and DOE—to undertake NAM and UTC likewise indicated that manufacturers using mildly flammable independent research to allow state and local adoption of building and refrigerants in their chillers.’’ flammable refrigerants to be used safely fire codes was necessary for chillers to Response: EPA interprets these in air conditioning and refrigeration use 2L refrigerants, including HFO- comments as applying to both equipment. 1234ze(E) and alternatives for R-410A centrifugal chillers and positive Response: EPA interprets these positive displacement chillers. UTC displacement chillers. The comments comments as applying to both provided an undated table that showed provided indicated that some changes centrifugal chillers and positive the number of states that had adopted could be incorporated into the model displacement chillers. These comments various editions (from 2003 to 2015) of codes 2018 cycle. Nonetheless, EPA indicate that the process of updating three different codes. UTC said the agrees with other commenters that the standards for flammable refrigerants is process for adoption typically takes 8– integration of appropriate changes to the underway and expected to be completed 10 years. They stated that they ‘‘do not model codes may not occur until the shortly. The results of this research expect model codes to be completely 2021 cycle, and as explained in section announced by DOE, ASHRAE, and updated until 2021.’’ Johnson Controls VI.A.5.b.iii above, finds that a January 1, AHRI will immediately be transmitted and AHRI also provided information on 2024, change of status date, which to the committees responsible for ANSI/ code adoption by states. AHRI claimed allows three years for State and local ASHRAE Standard 15–2013, ‘‘Safety that historically it has taken on average adoption of the 2021 model code, is Standard for Refrigeration Systems,’’ up to 10 years to adopt updated appropriate under such circumstances. and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, building codes and listed the four states AHRI is one of three entities that ‘‘Designation and Safety Classification using the 2006 or older IBC. AHRI stated announced a new research program of Refrigerants,’’ with a goal of using the that a January 1, 2025, transition date is between the HVAC industry and the results to update the standards as soon reasonable ‘‘based on the assumption Federal government that ‘‘will provide as possible, subject to full compliance that the HVAC industry would work the technical knowledge needed to with the ANSI consensus process. EPA together with the Federal government to facilitate and accelerate the safe use of is encouraged by this $5.2 million accelerate the adoption of the standards these refrigerants.’’ 127 As the table program as part of the ongoing global and codes necessary to allow for provided by UTC shows, some states effort to identify appropriate climate- commercialization of the products.’’ A were already using the most recent friendly alternatives and the private citizen pointed out that codes (2015) codes and the majority were just announcement that another $500,000 produced by the ICC, including the IBC, one cycle (i.e., 2012) behind as of early 126 has been pledged for this work. ‘‘allows the jurisdiction to accept new 2016. This would imply that many While EPA acknowledges that methods and materials, so long as that states will be able to adopt the 2021 additional time may be needed to adopt acceptance doesn’t reduce the level of codes by the 2024 status change date. such standards in codes, or provide safety provided by a code compliant UTC, Johnson Controls, AHRI, and other means for approval of the use of material or method.’’ This would NRDC did not address whether chillers with flammable refrigerants by indicate that a manufacturer or other amendments could be made, either to authorities having jurisdiction, such interested party could develop chillers the codes themselves or to state and time is provided through our January 1, using those refrigerants and provide local adoptions of the codes, without 2024, status change date. Furthermore, additional risk mitigation techniques full adoption of a specific cycle of EPA has noted that nonflammable that could then be deemed as acceptable building codes, providing the necessary alternatives are available for both under the codes, even if the codes did changes, if any, to allow chillers with centrifugal and positive displacement not specifically address the acceptable alternatives to be used after chillers, especially for designs currently requirements to use 2L refrigerants in the status change date, but other using HCFC-123 or HFC-134a. While such equipment. The citizen indicated comment provide evidence of such commenters stated that the alternatives that a subsidiary company to the ICC possibility. UTC, Johnson Controls, and for positive displacement chillers can provide manufacturers with reports AHRI also did not address whether currently using R-410A—such as those of its assessment of such new products alternative means and measures, such as listed by UTC—are flammable, this does or methods, and that manufacturers in those discussed by the private citizen not preclude the possibility of designing turn can share that report with jurisdictions to demonstrate the product 127 AHRI, 2016. ‘‘AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner to 126 EPA, 2016c. A ‘‘Cool’’ Way to Combat Climate Fund Flammable Refrigerant Research.’’ June 2, Change under the Montreal Protocol. July 20, 2016. meets the intent of the code. This would 2016. This document is accessible at http:// Available online at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/ then allow the use of that chiller, and www.ahrinet.org/News-Events/News-and-Shipping- 07/a-cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/. possibly others, using 2L refrigerants in Releases.aspx?A=1170.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86825

and NRDC jointly with IGSD, could be preamble and in information in the other chillers, the narrowed use limit taken to obtain approval from the docket to this rule, multiple chillers would likewise start on January 1, 2024. authority having jurisdiction to approve using nonflammable refrigerants are Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and the use of such chillers where a state or available today and others have been NASA supported EPA’s proposal to find locality had not otherwise adopted the announced for release by 2017. Both HFC-134a and R-404A acceptable building codes suggested as needed. Ingersoll Rand and Johnson Controls subject to narrowed use limits for Finally, considering UTC, Johnson have indicated a full line of centrifugal centrifugal and positive displacement Controls, and AHRI are aware that some chillers using nonflammable options. chillers for human-rated spacecraft and state adoptions lag the most recent These two companies also have related support equipment. Although codes by up to 12 years, it is logical to nonflammable options for positive NASA anticipates using this narrowed assume there would be plans to address displacement chillers. Although use limit for only a small number of such adoptions if they were to persist commenters indicated the only options chillers, they indicated that critical past their proposed status change date currently being investigated for positive properties of the chiller system were of 2025, which is only four years after displacement chillers currently using R- required for such applications that the code cycle that their comments 410A are flammable refrigerants, there is include ground-based assembly, presume will allow for implementation sufficient time to develop, certify and integration and test operations, and of A2L options. UTC, Johnson Controls, release such chillers prior to the change launch of the spacecraft. and AHRI, did not provide any details of status date. Response: EPA interprets these on such plans, or why they could not comments as applying to both v. Narrowed Use Limits for Military equally be implemented by the 2024 centrifugal and positive displacement Marine Vessels, Human-Rated status change date, apart from AHRI’s chillers. EPA agrees with the assessment Spacecraft, and Related Support assumption of Federal government Equipment made by NASA and is finalizing the assistance and further announcements narrowed use limit. Because EPA is of such. EPA is not aware that any part Comment: Boeing, Chemours, and the finalizing a status change date of of the Federal government was Department of Defense (DoD) supported January 1, 2024 for these refrigerants in represented or consulted when the EPA’s proposal to find HFC-134a other chillers, the narrowed use limit AHRI Chiller Section and NRDC agreed acceptable, subject to narrowed use would likewise start on January 1, 2024. to recommend a January 1, 2025, limits for centrifugal and positive transition date; however, we do note displacement chillers on military 6. Change of Status Listing for Certain subsequent to the AHRI Chiller Section marine vessels. In addition to the HFC Refrigerants for New Cold Storage and NRDC letter announcing this reasons discussed in the proposed rule Warehouses agreement, DOE along with AHRI and (81 FR 22844; April 18, 2016), a. Background comments submitted by the Department ASHRAE, announced the $5.2 million i. What is the affected end-use? effort ‘‘that will establish a more robust of the Navy on behalf of DoD addressed fact base about the properties and the several alternatives that are acceptable Cold storage warehouses are use of flammable refrigerants’’ with an for chillers and not subject to status temperature-controlled facilities used to intent to update standards.128 change that have been found to not meet store meat, produce, dairy and other Comment: UTC maintained that the stringent requirements for military products that are delivered to other where codes did not allow the use of marine vessels. For instance, DoD locations for sale to the ultimate A2L refrigerants after the status change pointed out that certain alternatives that consumer. This end-use within the date, businesses’ only option would be are flammable, such as HFO-1234ze(E) SNAP program describes an application to repair a less efficient system. and R-717, would not meet the DoD’s of refrigeration equipment for an Elsewhere UTC stated that another requirements. While in stationary intended purpose, and hence the possibility would be for customers to applications the flammability may be listings of acceptable and unacceptable use a packaged product or variable handled, for instance, by increased refrigerants for this end-use apply refrigerant flow system. ventilation, this is not a practical regardless of the type of refrigeration Response: EPA interprets these solution for submarines or surface-going system used. comments as applying to both ships under warfare conditions. DoD As explained in the proposed rule (81 centrifugal chillers and positive also discussed R-1233zd(E), noting that FR 22849; April 18, 2016), cold storage displacement chillers. As previously it would be used in low-pressure warehouses are usually deemed noted, EPA believes that the change of chillers that are not acceptable for ‘‘private’’ or ‘‘public,’’ and some may be status date of January 1, 2024, allows narrow military uses due to reliability both, describing the relationship sufficient time for adoption of industry and maintenance issues. Boeing also between the owner or operator of the standards and changes to relevant reiterated that ‘‘testing of alternate cold storage warehouse and the owner codes. In determining a change of status refrigerants or blowing agents for these of the products stored within. date, EPA does not simply pick the niche markets may require more time Cold storage warehouses are also latest date by which the Agency can be than for mass-market commercial items, often divided into two general uses: certain that all codes will be updated. due to customer and regulatory agency ‘‘coolers’’ that store products at To the extent there may be codes that approval requirements.’’ temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and have not been modified by the change Response: EPA interprets these ‘‘freezers’’ that store products below this of status date, users will have several comments as applying to both temperature. Some subdivisions of these options in addition to the option of centrifugal and positive displacement types were also provided in the repair of an existing system or use of a chillers. EPA agrees with the assessment proposed rule (81 FR 22849; April 18, non-chiller system. As noted in the made by DoD of specific technical 2016). issues in transitioning for military We explained that several other end- 128 ASHRAE, 2016. ‘‘ASHRAE, AHRI, DOE marine vessels and is finalizing the uses under the SNAP program cover Partner to Fund Flammable Refrigerant Research.’’ narrowed use limit. Because EPA is other parts of the food (and product) June 2, 2016. This document is accessible at https:// www.ashrae.org/news/2016/ashrae-ahri-doe- finalizing a status change date of cold chain and are distinct from the partner-to-fund-flammable-refrigerant-research. January 1, 2024 for this refrigerant in cold storage warehouse end-use. We

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86826 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

drew distinctions between the ‘‘cold manufacture and often installation of a refrigeration end-use because storage warehouse’’ end-use which is refrigeration system for an intended manufacturers make equipment that subject to this action and the IPR end- purpose, which may occur on a newly could be used for retail food use while noting that many facilities manufactured or an existing cold storage refrigeration or could be used in a may have operations and refrigeration warehouse. The status changes in this manner that would be classified as a equipment for both end-uses. We also action would apply to the expansion of cold storage warehouse within SNAP. In discussed ‘‘refrigerated food processing the refrigeration system in an existing today’s action, EPA is not changing the and dispensing equipment,’’ which is a cold storage warehouse if the capacity of definition of the cold storage warehouse category of the ‘‘retail food that existing refrigeration system is end-use such that some types are refrigeration’’ end-use and is subject to increased to handle the expansion. considered a different end-use by virtue separate decisions in this action (see Because the existing system capacity of their size. As addressed below, section VI.A.7). Finally, we discussed was inadequate to provide the necessary comments suggesting this subdivision ‘‘cold rooms’’ and ‘‘walk-in’’ coolers and cooling for the expanded load, the did not provide evidence how any of the freezers, noting that many used for existing system did not meet the SNAP criteria varied between these two storage of food and beverages at a retail intended purpose of the expanded subdivisions. Although comments as food location (e.g., a supermarket or capacity, and therefore if it were well as the proposed rule noted that restaurant) are considered to fall within expanded to hand that load it would be such types of cold storage warehouses other retail food refrigeration end-use considered ‘‘new’’ with respect to are subject to DOE energy conservation categories that were covered by a SNAP. On the other hand, if an existing regulations, the comments did not previous rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, refrigeration system is extended (for indicate how this fact would change the 2015). See section VI.A.4.c.i of the instance, by adding additional availability of acceptable alternatives by proposed rule for background on the refrigerant lines and evaporators to a the change of status date proposed. cold storage warehouse end-use (81 FR newly manufactured or newly An equipment manufacturer 22849–51; April 18, 2016). commissioned building, to a portion of commented that many industrial EPA understands that existing cold the existing facility previously not used processors have multiple cold storage storage warehouses may undergo for cold storage, or to an extension of warehouses on the same campus and expansion to handle needs such as the previous building), without that these may be cooled from a system increased production, consolidation of requiring an increase in capacity and that also provides cooling to other distribution points, or increased while only needing the same full applications, such as an industrial population or other reasons for refrigerant charge as before, the system process refrigeration system. The increased demands of the products is not considered ‘‘new’’ and hence may manufacturer stated that EPA should stored. Such expansions could include continue its operations with the existing ‘‘treat campuses with multiple building a physical expansion of the storage refrigerant. Likewise, a facility may and processing areas as one complete space or using racking techniques to increase the amount of products it industrial process.’’ EPA notes, increase the amount of product within handles while at the same time however, that SNAP decisions are on an a given facility. The owner of cold providing better sealing around end-use basis, and therefore any cold storage warehouses undergoing such infiltration points and/or increasing the storage warehouse may only use a expansions (or the owner’s designer) insulation on walls and roofs, and refrigerant listed as acceptable for that may determine that a new system needs thereby avoid the need to increase the end-use. While through today’s action to be added. That new system could be refrigeration capacity of the equipment EPA is not changing the status of a complete newly manufactured system serving the cold storage warehouse. refrigerants in the industrial process separate from the existing system, or it Commenters suggested divisions in refrigeration end-use, we are doing so could be equipment and refrigerant the cold storage warehouse market by for new cold storage warehouses, and as added to the existing system increasing which EPA should finalize separate such some refrigerants in this end-use the capacity of the existing system. In decisions. One suggestion was to will be listed as unacceptable as of the both cases, EPA considers these actions distinguish between indirect and direct change of status date. as the manufacturing of a new system systems. In today’s action, EPA is not EPA is not aware of other federal rules and hence that equipment is affected by subdividing the cold storage warehouse applying to efficiency of cold storage the changes of status in this final rule. end-use based on whether a direct or warehouses (i.e., the buildings), but we A commenter stated that cold storage indirect system is used. As addressed find that some federal rules apply to warehouses are ‘‘typically designed below, the commenter suggesting this equipment that could be used in this with planned expansions’’ and that the subdivision, and different change of specified end-use. Specifically, EPA change of status should not apply to any status decisions for the two noted in the proposed rule (81 FR future expansion of such warehouses. subdivisions, did not provide evidence 22853; April 18, 2016) that air-cooled EPA addressed the definition of a how any of the SNAP criteria varied commercial unitary air conditioners and ‘‘new’’ system as used in the SNAP between the two subdivisions, instead heat pumps (‘‘CUACs’’ and ‘‘CUHPs’’) program in a previous rule (80 FR only addressing energy efficiency and might be applied at cold storage 42902–03; July 20, 2015). As explained economic burden. warehouses, and such equipment is there, consistent with the definition in Another comment suggested a subject to DOE energy conservation 40 CFR part 82, subparts A and I, EPA distinction between those cold storage standards. Comment from NRDC and considers a system to be new for warehouses with a footprint of 3,000 IGSD confirmed that cold storage purposes of these SNAP determinations square feet (279 square meters) or less, warehouses, among other types of as of the date upon which the refrigerant noting they are covered by DOE energy designs, could be outfitted with rooftop circuit is complete, the system can conservation standards for walk-in units that must comply with the DOE function, the system holds a full coolers and freezers, a point brought out rule, and that ‘‘[m]anufacturers are refrigerant charge, and the system is in the proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April expecting to begin using HFC-32, R- ready for use for its intended purposes. 18, 2016). A commenter stated that EPA 452B, and other A2L-class refrigerants Therefore, as used in the SNAP should consider all such cold storage in rooftop units in 2023 at the latest.’’ program, ‘‘new’’ refers to the warehouses to be part of the retail food For further information on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86827

relationship between this action and government-mandated process safety used CFC-12, R-502 and HCFC-22 and other federal rules, see section management (PSM) and [a] risk more recently R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR management plan (RMP).’’ 129 Various R-410A, or R-507A. 22853; April 18, 2016). state and local building codes could also One commenter, AHRI, indicated apply, and adherence to such codes manufacturers are developing R-407A ii. What other types of equipment are might hinder or even eliminate the use condensing units that could be used in used for similar application but are not of R-717 in some cold storage cold storage warehouses, particularly covered by this section of the rule? warehouses. Likewise, regulations may those less than 3,000 square feet which, EPA has found several not-in-kind require employing operators with as noted in section VI.A.4.c.v of the systems (i.e., systems that operate using special levels of expertise, reporting of proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, thermodynamic cycles other than vapor- use or accidental releases, and other 2016), are subject to DOE energy compression) acceptable for this end- actions not typically required for other conservation standards for walk-in use, including ammonia absorption, alternatives, increasing the operating coolers and freezers. evaporative cooling, desiccant cooling, cost compared to facilities using other and Stirling cycle systems, which are refrigerants. These increased costs b. What is EPA’s final decision? not subject to this action. however are often offset by the high For new cold storage warehouses, energy efficiencies typically achieved EPA proposed to change as of January iii. What refrigerants are used in cold with R-717 systems. We also pointed to 1, 2023, the status of the following storage warehouses? equipment designs, such as low charge refrigerants from acceptable to In section VI.A.4.c.i of the proposed packaged R-717 systems, R-717/R-744 unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/ rule, EPA indicated that R-717 is cascade systems, and indirect 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, believed to be the most common secondary-loop systems using R-717 as R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R- refrigerant used in cold storage the primary refrigerant in a machine 417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, warehouses and provided information room separated from the cooled interior, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R- on equipment types and system designs that can overcome some limitations on 428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS- that facilitate the use of that refrigerant the use of R-717. These systems are 44 (2003 composition). In this action, (81 FR 22850–22851; April 18, 2016). described in market characterizations we are finalizing the status changes that We noted that limitations on the use found in the docket to this rule (EPA– we proposed with no changes. The of R-717 do exist. For example, it is HQ–OAR–2015–0663).130 While R-717 change of status determinations for new reported that charge sizes exceeding is the most common refrigerant used in cold storage warehouses are 10,000 pounds of R-717 ‘‘may require cold storage warehouses, others have summarized in Table 9.

TABLE 9—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES

End-use Substitutes Listing Status

Cold Storage Ware- HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, Unacceptable as of houses (new). R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, January 1, 2023. R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition).

i. How do these unacceptable Federal Register citations concerning our analysis that these two blends posed refrigerants compare to other data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, a higher overall risk to human health refrigerants for this end-use with respect GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for and the environment than other to SNAP criteria? acceptable alternatives, as well as those available refrigerants for this end use. Other refrigerants for new cold storage we are finding unacceptable, for new EPA did not propose and is not taking warehouse not subject to this action are cold storage warehouses may be found action in this rule to change the status FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, IKON A, in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– of R-407C and R-407F in cold storage IKON B, KDD6, R-407C, R-407F, R- HQ–OAR–2015–0663). warehouses; those refrigerants remain 437A, R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744, One commenter requested that EPA acceptable in this end-use. EPA has not RS-24 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR- clarify which refrigerants in the R-407 listed others in the R-407 series, 02, and THR-03. In the proposed rule, series were subject to a change in status, including R-407D, R-407E and R-407G, EPA provided information on the while others specifically requested that and R-407H, acceptable in this end-use. environmental and health risks we not change the status of R-407A and For cold storage warehouses, the presented by the alternatives that are R-407B in cold storage warehouses. We refrigerants we are listing as being found unacceptable compared are finalizing a change of status for the unacceptable have insignificant ODPs, with other available alternatives that are refrigerants we proposed. With respect but they have GWPs ranging from 2,090 listed as acceptable (81 FR 22851–52; to the R-407 series refrigerants in this to 3,990. As shown in Table 10, April 18, 2016). In addition, a technical end-use, EPA only proposed a change of acceptable alternatives have GWPs support document 131 that provides the status for R-407A and R-407B based on ranging from zero to 1,820.

129 ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook— 130 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 131 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- Refrigeration. The American Society of Heating, Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc. Household Refrigeration Industries in the United Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ISBN 978–1–936504–71–8; States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Certain Substitutes under the Significant New ISSN 1930–7195. Protection Agency. October 2015. Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86828 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW COLD STORAGE WAREHOUSES 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

R-450A, R-513A, R-717, R-744 ...... 0–630 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. IKON A, IKON B, THR-02 ...... 30–560 0—Not public 3 .. Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F ...... 1,430–1,820 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, KDD6, R-437A, RS-24 (2002 composition), 920–1,810 0—Not public 3 .. Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. SP34E, THR-03. R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-423A ...... 2,090–2,800 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R- 2,260–2,730 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 424A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition). HFC-227ea, R-421B, R-404A, R-507A ...... 3,190–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ...... 3,080–3,610 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3 The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

Some of the refrigerant blends not SNAP rule, EPA noted ‘‘[R-717] has and thus pose significantly greater risk, subject to this action, as well as several been used as a medium to low we are listing the following refrigerants of the substitutes for which we are temperature refrigerant in vapor as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, R-125/290/ changing the listing from acceptable to compression cycles for more than 100 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, unacceptable, include small amounts of years. Ammonia [R-717] has excellent R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R- R-290, R-600, or other substances that refrigerant properties, a characteristic 417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, are VOCs. These amounts are small and pungent odor, no long-term atmospheric R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R- for this end-use, are not expected to risks, and low cost. It is, however, 428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS- contribute significantly to ground-level mildly flammable and toxic, although it 44 (2003 composition). ozone formation.132 In the actions where is not a cumulative poison. OSHA EPA listed these refrigerants as standards specify a 15 minute short- ii. When will the status change? acceptable or acceptable subject to use term exposure limit of 35 ppm for EPA is establishing a change of status conditions, EPA concluded none of ammonia [R-717].’’ (53 FR 13072; March date for the above-listed refrigerants these refrigerants in this end-use pose 18, 1994). We further noted its use in new cold storage warehouses of January significantly greater risk to ground-level various food and beverage processing 1, 2023, which the Agency finds is a ozone formation than other alternative and storage applications as well as other reasonable yet expeditious date by refrigerants that do not meet the industrial applications. In that rule, we which the technical challenges can be definition of VOC under CAA found R-717 acceptable for use in new met for a safe and smooth transition to regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) or cold storage warehouses, concluding alternatives. This amount of time is that are specifically excluded from that that its overall risk to human health and needed particularly considering the definition for the purpose of developing the environment was not significantly various equipment types that could be SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. greater than the other alternatives found employed to provide the cooling The refrigerants listed as acceptable acceptable. This conclusion was based necessary for new cold storage and not subject to this action are highly on the assumption that the regulated warehouses and the requirement for volatile and typically evaporate or community adheres to OSHA many of these equipment types to meet partition to air, rather than regulations on such use as well as energy conservation standards while contaminating surface waters. Their standard refrigeration practices, such as undergoing such a transition. Although effects on aquatic life are expected to be ASHRAE Standard 15 and the IIAR acceptable alternatives, particularly R- small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 133 Standard 2, which are often utilized 717, are widely used, EPA recognizes or ecosystem effects than those of the by local authorities when setting their based on comment that R-717 is not an refrigerants that are subject to the status own building and safety requirements. option due to technical or compliance change for this end-use. See section VI.A.4.c.iii.(b) of the constraints at some facilities. For these With the exception of R-717, all other proposed rule (81 FR 22852; April 18, facilities, the user would need the time acceptable refrigerants, as well as those 2016) for a discussion on the long to investigate the use of other that we are listing as unacceptable, are history of use of R-717 and our original alternatives and to design, and possibly not flammable and are of low toxicity decision finding it acceptable in new certify to DOE energy conservation (e.g., those listed under ASHRAE cold storage warehouses. standards, equipment using the chosen Standard 34–2013 are Class A toxicity In summary, because the risks other alternative. As discussed in the and Class 1 nonflammable). R-717 is than GWP are not significantly different proposed rule (81 FR 22850; April 18, mildly flammable with a low flame for the other available alternatives than 2016), in some cases, R-717 may not speed; it is classified as a B2L for those we proposed to list as have been chosen based on building refrigerant under ASHRAE 34 (2013). R- unacceptable, and because the GWPs for code and regulatory restrictions that 717 has a long history of use as a the refrigerants we proposed to list as might have eliminated its use. As also refrigerant in cold storage warehouses unacceptable are significantly higher discussed there, and as supported by and other applications. In the original comment, technologies are under 133 ANSI/IIAR Standard 2–2008 (Addendum B)— 132 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact American National Standard for Equipment, Design, development that can overcome some of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level & Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia such limitations; for example, newly- Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. Mechanical Refrigerating Systems. developed low-charge R-717 systems

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86829

can overcome building code and Refrigeration System[s]’’ and ‘‘Direct cold storage warehouse or in retail food regulatory challenges that arise when Expansion Refrigeration System[s].’’ refrigeration, would need to comply large charge sizes would otherwise be They did not suggest any different with DOE energy efficiency standards required, although we recognize that decisions for the former. For the latter, for walk-in coolers and freezers. They such equipment may not be allowed in they recommended that R-410A remain stated manufacturers are preparing certain jurisdictions or may not be acceptable, noting that it (along with R- systems that use R-407A for small cold practical in certain situations. EPA is 407C and R-407F) is also used in direct storage warehouses. Daikin, NRDC, and establishing a January 1, 2023, status systems. Daikin commented that both IGSD indicated that R-407C and R-407F change date in part to allow these direct and indirect systems may be are also used in cold storage technologies to more fully mature and used, even at the same facility. Daikin warehouses. National Refrigerants asked become more fully available in the said that customer requirements will EPA to list all R-407 series refrigerants market. In addition to these typically determine the refrigeration acceptable for cold storage warehouses technologies, because a wide variety of system and that these requirements to provide additional options and to other equipment types can be applied at depend on ‘‘the use conditions, ‘‘eliminate confusion in the industry’’ a cold storage warehouse, and some structure of the building and climatic and ‘‘ease compliance for technicians such equipment is subject to DOE considerations among other factors.’’ and equipment owners by giving them energy conservation requirements, EPA Response: EPA is not subdividing the the flexibility to utilize their R-407 expects that this period of time will end-use as suggested. For direct preferred refrigerant.’’ allow acceptable alternatives to become systems, two of the three refrigerants Response: EPA disagrees that certain they mentioned as being typically more fully available for cold storage cold storage warehouses should be used—R-407C and R-407F—remain warehouses. For locations and included as part of the retail food acceptable as proposed. Daikin did not applications that would otherwise use refrigeration end-use. EPA established provide any indication of why in direct HFC blends subject to status change, status changes for three retail food systems R-410A would be required as primarily R-404A, R-410A and R-507A, refrigeration end-use categories in a opposed to these refrigerants not subject time is needed to develop equipment previous rule and stated that equipment to status change. The commenter did with other alternative refrigerants or in these categories of the SNAP end-use not indicate specifically what use address the technical challenges of could also be subject to DOE’s energy conditions, building structures, climates using R-717 or other alternatives that are conservation standards for Walk-In not subject to the proposed change in or other technical barriers warranted subdividing the end-use as suggested, Coolers and Freezers (80 FR 82902; July status. As explained in section 20, 2015). Likewise, we noted in our VI.A.4.c.v of the proposed rule (81 FR nor did the commenter offer reasons for not changing the status of one particular proposed rule (81 FR 22853; April 18, 22853; April 18, 2016), certain types of 2016) that small cold storage equipment potentially applied in cold refrigerant in one of those subdivisions. Comment: Zero Zone agreed with warehouses could also be covered by storage warehouses are subject to energy these DOE standards. We disagree that conservation standards, and hence time EPA’s explanation of the distinction between cold storage warehouses and R-407A and R-407B should remain will be required to design, test and acceptable despite the indication that certify equipment for those standards, IPR. Response: EPA thanks the commenter some products are being designed using while at the same time using acceptable the former or for a manufacturer’s alternatives. for this comment. Comment: Zero Zone claimed that preference to use the same refrigerant in c. How is EPA responding to comments? EPA should consider small cold storage different end-uses. We are particularly EPA received comments on various warehouses—those with a footprint of confused by the inclusion of R-407B in topics including, the proposed status 3,000 square feet (279 square meters) or the comments from Zero Zone and change date of January 1, 2023, the less—as fitting in the retail food AHRI requesting we find it acceptable, refrigerants proposed for status change, refrigeration end-use. They noted that as we changed the status of that the acceptability of other refrigerants, DOE and California regulations cover refrigerant for all categories of new retail and requests for subdividing the such items, whether they are cold food refrigeration addressed in a category and limiting the status changes storage warehouses or they are used for previous rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, based on those subdivisions. retail food refrigeration, as walk-in 2015). If we were to treat small cold Commenters included AHRI, an coolers or freezers. They felt that storage warehouses as retail food industry organization; CARB, a state equipment manufacturers supplying refrigeration, as these commenters also agency; Daikin and Zero Zone, equipment that meets such definitions suggest, R-407B would be subject to equipment manufacturers; Chemours, of walk-in coolers or freezers ‘‘need to status change. Several alternatives that Honeywell, and National Refrigerants, be able to supply the same equipment’’ remain acceptable for cold storage three chemical producers; and NRDC, regardless of whether they would be warehouses are also acceptable for IGSD, and EIA, three environmental classified as a cold storage warehouse or various retail food refrigeration end-use organizations. retail food refrigeration under SNAP. categories. For instance, R-407C and R- We have grouped comments together They said that equipment manufacturers 407F, which as noted are being used in and responded to the issues raised by should not have to ‘‘ascertain what some cold storage warehouses, are also the comments in the sections that product will be in the building.’’ Zero acceptable for the retail food follow, or in a separate Response to Zone stated that both R-407A and R- refrigeration remote condensing unit Comments document which is included 407B should remain acceptable, end-use category. Manufacturers who in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– especially if EPA did not treat small wish to use only one refrigerant may do OAR–2015–0663). cold storage warehouses as part of the so and to the extent they are already retail food refrigeration end use. AHRI using a refrigerant that is subject to i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed also stated that R-407A and R-407B status change in the cold storage Comment: Daikin suggested that EPA should be acceptable in cold storage warehouse end-use, EPA finds no subdivide the cold storage warehouse warehouses because the same unit evidence that these or other acceptable end-use into ‘‘Indirect Expansion cooler equipment, whether used in a alternatives cannot be adopted by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86830 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

2023 status change date while acceptable substitute, we also need to established a status change date of 2023 continuing to meet DOE energy consider whether there are other based on the time required to address conservation standards. alternatives available. Although we the number of different equipment types Further, we disagree that to eliminate recognize that alternatives such as R-717 and system designs used for cold storage confusion, ease compliance, or provide and R-744 are available for certain types warehouse and to redesign, and if flexibility we should list all R-407 series of equipment in certain applications in required recertify as compliant with refrigerants as acceptable. EPA reviews the cold storage warehouses end-use, DOE energy conservation standards. refrigerants individually and is aware the information available at this time EPA has determined that a change of that manufacturers, users, and owners does not indicate that there are available status date of January 1, 2023, is make it their business to know the exact alternatives for all types of equipment in reasonable and expeditious in light of refrigerant they are using, since they all types of applications. the various DOE energy conservation currently are aware that not all R-407 Comment: AHRI, Zero Zone, and standards that must be met (and for series refrigerants are acceptable in this Honeywell all supported an EPA action which equipment needs to be designed or any other end-use. Just because two to list R-448A and R-449A as acceptable and manufactured), the need to further or more refrigerants are made up of the for cold storage warehouses. Honeywell assess currently acceptable same components 134 does not mean noted that they are already being nonflammable and low toxicity they present the same overall risk to implemented in similar equipment for alternatives in specific applications, and human health and the environment. the supermarket systems end-use the need to develop safe practices and Indeed, R-407 and other series category. On the other hand, NRDC and institute State and local code changes if refrigerants are made up of components IGSD urged EPA to find these two required for flammable and higher having different flammability, toxicity, refrigerants unacceptable, while EIA toxicity alternatives for certain GWP, and other characteristics asked EPA to ‘‘[r]equest advance equipment where the application and/or considered by SNAP, making a comments on changing the listing the location limits the use of flammable knowledge of specific composition status’’ of these two HFC/HFO blends as or higher toxicity refrigerants at this critical to evaluating associated risk. well as R-450A and R-513A for new time. The commenter did not provide a Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, cold storage warehouses. discussion of these equipment design Chemours, and CARB supported EPA Response: These comments suggesting and application issues or an indication changing the status to unacceptable of that EPA take action to list additional of how those can be addressed by 2019. those refrigerants we proposed for such substitutes as acceptable or to change Comment: CARB suggested a status change in new cold storage warehouses. the listing status of already-listed change date of 2020, noting that low- Response: EPA thanks the substitutes go beyond the scope of this charge R-717 systems address issues commenters for these comments. rulemaking. As noted previously, EPA with that refrigerant’s use in cold Comment: Chemours felt that R-407C may in the future issue a new proposal storage warehouses and where it cannot and R-407F should also be listed as to change the status of additional be used, R-744 or other non-toxic, low- unacceptable stating there are multiple refrigerants in this end use after GWP refrigerants could be used. alternatives. Daikin compared R-410A to considering what other alternatives are Response: The commenter did not R-448A and R-449A, arguing that available and performing an analysis provide technical support that a change because R-410A can reduce the amount using the SNAP criteria. Regarding the of status date of January 1, 2020, was of refrigerant needed by 30 percent, the request that EPA substitutes not already feasible. The commenter does not total GWP-weighted emissions would be on one of the lists as acceptable or provide any detail on the use of R-744 similar to that of R-448A and R-449A. unacceptable, EPA notes that R-448A in those applications where R-717 is not CARB stated that R-717, especially in and R-449A have been submitted to the an option, and we are not aware that its low-charge units, and R-744 could be SNAP Program for review, but EPA has use has been demonstrated for all of used. EIA suggested that EPA continue not yet issued a proposed decision for those applications. We are aware that R- to evaluate additional refrigerants and these refrigerants or issued a Notice of 744 is being used for new cold storage consider those for status change, Acceptability. warehouses in cascade and secondary mentioning HFC-134a, R-407C, R-407F, loop systems with R-717. However, we ii. Change of Status Date R-450A, and R-513A. did not see similar evidence it can be Response: EPA’s proposal was limited Comment: EIA, NRDC, IGSD, and used in a direct system (i.e., not in a to determinations for the specific Chemours supported EPA’s proposed cascade or secondary loop system with refrigerants proposed which pose 2023 status change date for new cold R-717) in the various equipment types significantly greater risk than other storage warehouses. and designs used for this end-use. available refrigerants. We cannot take Response: EPA thanks the Comment: Zero Zone stated that the final action changing the status of commenters for these comments. change of status for R-404A and R-507A additional refrigerants without first Comment: Honeywell suggested a should be January 1, 2025, because performing the necessary analysis of the status change date of January 1, 2019, those refrigerants offer the low-glide SNAP criteria and providing notice and based on the fact that several options, properties desired for flooded or liquid an opportunity for comment. including R-407F, R-717, and R-744, are overfeed systems. They compared these In response to the suggestion that we acceptable for new cold storage to R-450A and R-513A—both of which list additional specific refrigerants as warehouses. They also indicated R- are acceptable in new cold storage unacceptable, we note that at least 448A and R-449A are potential options warehouses and are not subject to the two—R-407C and R-407F—are currently that could be implemented by January 1, change in status—which they described used in cold storage warehouses. In 2019. as also having low glide but low addition to considering the SNAP Response: EPA agrees that many of volumetric efficiency. They felt the time criteria in determining whether to the acceptable refrigerants not subject to was necessary ‘‘to allow technology and propose action to change the status of an status change have been and can chemical companies to come up with a continue to be used in many types of solution to this design issue.’’ 134 All R-407 series refrigerants are composed of equipment for many of the applications Response: The commenter did not HFC-32, HFC-125 and HFC-134a. for new cold storage warehouses. EPA provide any information that it was not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86831

technically feasible to transition away emissions in CO2-equivalent terms 2016) certain types of equipment, from R-404A and R-507A until January could be more than if a lower-GWP including water coolers and stand-alone 1, 2025. No explanatory timeline or past refrigerant were used in the same or a retail food refrigeration units, do not fall experience was provided that indicated similarly low-charge design. For within this end-use category. how long it might take to resolve the instance, an acceptable alternative could issues they described. Other be used in a secondary loop design, iii. What Refrigerants Are Used in Retail commenters have noted that R-407C and reducing the amount of that refrigerant Food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food R-407F, which are also high-glide used for the given application. Processing and Dispensing Equipment) blends, are used in cold storage 7. Change of Status for Certain HFC warehouses. Although they did not EPA discussed which refrigerants Refrigerants for New Retail Food mention whether those were specifically were acceptable in the refrigerated food Refrigeration (Refrigerated Food used in the flooded evaporator systems processing and dispensing equipment Processing and Dispensing Equipment) described, we are not aware and Zero end-use category in section VI.A.4.d.i of Zone has not provided any information a. Background the proposed rule (81 FR 22855; April 18, 2016). While numerous refrigerants on why they could not be used. Zero i. What is the affected end-use? Zone also did not discuss why single- are acceptable in this end use, as noted component (no glide) refrigerants In the SNAP July 2015 rule (80 FR by the comments from UTC, R-404A is including R-717 and R-744 could not be 42902), EPA clarified that ‘‘equipment typically used for freezing applications used in the types of systems with which designed to make or process cold food and HFC-134a for refrigerated they are concerned. Finally, the and beverages that are dispensed via a applications. nozzle, including soft-serve ice cream commenter noted that there are some In comments submitted on the low-glide blends available, but did not machines, ‘slushy’ iced beverage proposal, AHRI and UTC discussed the provide the detail on the steps needed dispensers, and soft-drink dispensers’’ potential use of R-448A and R-449A in to redesign equipment to account for the was not included as part of the retail low volumetric efficiency they indicated food refrigeration end-use categories this end-use category, and AHRI urged for those available alternatives and why specifically identified in that final rule. EPA to find these blends acceptable. those steps could not be completed EPA clarified that this equipment is part Other information claimed as CBI before January 1, 2025. of a separate end-use category within indicated the potential to transition R- the retail food refrigeration end-use. 404A applications within this end-use iii. SNAP Review Criteria This end-use category, ‘‘refrigerated category to those refrigerants. Tecumseh Comment: Daikin believed that ‘‘it is food processing and dispensing also urged EPA to list these two important to note the equipment’s equipment,’’ is covered in this section of refrigerants acceptable as well as R- potential total environmental impact the final rule. For an overview of this 452A. EPA has received submissions for (i.e. refrigerant quantity multiplied with end-use category, please refer to section these three refrigerants. Concurrent with GWP), not only the refrigerant’s GWP VI.A.4.d.i of the proposed rule (81 FR this rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, value.’’ As such, they stated that R-410A 22854–55; April 18, 2016). and R-449B as acceptable without use could reduce the total charge size up to One commenter, UTC, pointed out conditions for new refrigerated food that certain soft-serve and other frozen 30 percent compared to R-404A. processing and dispensing equipment. Response: EPA interprets this dairy treats may not fall within the We are currently reviewing R-452A for comment to be based on the SNAP technical definition of ice-cream due to this end-use. review criteria of ‘‘atmospheric effects,’’ milk fat content, but that such products which is discussed above in section ‘‘are handled like ice-cream and shake b. What is EPA’s final decision? II.E.1. In a previous proposed rule and products from an operational point of in the response to comments document view.’’ UTC also stated that a creamer For new refrigerated food processing for the associated final rule, we dispenser (refrigerated unit dispensing and dispensing equipment, EPA discussed the possibility of allowing creamer in a dosed amount) and bulk proposed to change as of January 1, refrigerants with a higher GWP in low- milk dispensers (refrigerated unit 2021, the status of the following charge systems. In particular, we stated holding a container of milk that refrigerants from acceptable to ‘‘given the high GWP of these dispenses through a small nozzle when unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/ refrigerants compared to other the handle is lifted) would fit in this 290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- refrigerants that are available in category as well. EPA’s use of 404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, [supermarket systems], we do not ‘‘including’’ in its description of the R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R- believe that use with a small charge size type of equipment that falls under this 421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, adequately addresses the greater risk end use indicates that the list was not R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R- they pose.’’ (79 FR 46148; August 6, intended to be exclusive. EPA considers 438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 2014). The same consideration is the types of equipment identified by formulation). In this action, we are applicable here for R-410A, even if UTC, which dispense products through finalizing the status changes we systems were designed to reduce the a nozzle, to fit within the end-use. total charge size as Daikin says is proposed with no changes. The change possible. Use in a lower-charge system ii. What other types of equipment are of status determinations for new does not guarantee lower overall used for similar applications but are not refrigerated food processing and emissions. If catastrophic losses covered by this section of the rule? dispensing equipment are summarized occurred in a system employing R-410A As noted in section VI.A.4.d.i of the in Table 11. or other high-GWP refrigerants, the proposed rule (81 FR 22854; April 18,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86832 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 11—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR NEW RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment]

End-use Substitutes Listing status

Retail food refrigeration (re- HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021. frigerated food processing 404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R- and dispensing equip- 417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- ment) (new only). 424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation).

i. How do these unacceptable SP34E, THR-02 and THR-03. In the Register citations concerning data on refrigerants compare to other proposed rule (81 FR 22855–22856; the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, refrigerants for this end-use with respect April 18, 2016) and SNAP Notice 31 (81 VOC, toxicity, flammability) for to SNAP criteria? FR 32241; May 23, 2016), EPA provided acceptable alternatives, as well as those information on the environmental and we are finding unacceptable, for new For new refrigerated food processing health risks presented by the refrigerated food processing and and dispensing equipment, the alternatives that are being found dispensing equipment may be found in substitutes that will remain listed as unacceptable compared with other the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– acceptable pose lower overall risk to available alternatives that are listed as HQ–OAR–2015–0663). human health and the environment than acceptable. Also, concurrent with this the refrigerants we are listing as rule, EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A and The refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable. Acceptable refrigerants R-449B acceptable for new refrigerated unacceptable have GWPs ranging from include: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, food processing and dispensing 1,770 to 3,990. As shown in Table 12, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 equipment. A technical support acceptable alternatives have GWPs formulation), R-450A, R-513A, R-744, document 135 that provides the Federal ranging from one to 1,510.

TABLE 12—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW RETAIL FOOD REFRIGERATION [Refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment] 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

HFC-134a, R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-450A, R-513A, R-744 ...... 1–1,430 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, IKON B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 composition), 30–1,510 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. SP34E, THR-02, THR-03. R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A ...... 1,770–2,800 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, 1,810–2,730 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. R-424A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition). HFC-227ea, R-404A, R-421B, R-507A ...... 3,190–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ...... 3,080–3,610 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3 The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

Some of the refrigerant blends not that definition for the purpose of the proposed rule (81 FR 22856; April subject to this action, as well as several developing SIPs to attain and maintain 18, 2016) and in SNAP Notice 31 (81 FR of the substitutes for which we are the NAAQS. 32245–46; May 23, 2016), the toxicity of changing the listing from acceptable to The refrigerants not subject to this the refrigerants we are listing as unacceptable, include small amounts of action are highly volatile and typically unacceptable is comparable to that of VOC such as R-290 (propane) and R-600 evaporate or partition to air, rather than other alternatives that are acceptable in (n-butane). These amounts are small, contaminating surface waters. Their this end-use. and for this end-use category are not effects on aquatic life are expected to be In summary, because the risks other expected to contribute significantly to small and pose no greater risk of aquatic than GWP are not significantly different ground-level ozone formation.136 In the or ecosystem effects than those of the for the other available alternatives than actions where EPA listed these refrigerants that are subject to the for those we proposed to list as refrigerants as acceptable, EPA proposed status change for this end-use. unacceptable, and because the GWPs for concluded none of these refrigerants in For this end-use category, all of the the refrigerants we proposed to list as this end-use pose significantly greater refrigerants, including those which we unacceptable are significantly higher risk to ground-level ozone formation are listing as unacceptable, are not and thus pose significantly greater risk, than other alternative refrigerants that flammable (e.g., those listed under we are listing the following refrigerants do not meet the definition of VOC under ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 are class 1 as unacceptable: HFC-227ea, KDD6, R- CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) flammability). Additionally, as 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), or that are specifically excluded from discussed at section VI.A.4.d.iii.(c) of R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-

135 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- Certain Substitutes under the Significant New 136 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86833

407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, refrigerants and we pointed out that group of companies, Refrigerants, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- Emerson, a major supplier of Naturally!, stated that ‘‘there are natural 422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, compressors and other components, was refrigerant alternatives available on the R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 qualifying these refrigerants for use in market’’ for dispensing equipment. The formulation). its products. Others have followed suit. former comment discussed retail food For instance, Tecumseh has approved R- refrigeration generally, rather than the i. When will the status change? 449A as an acceptable alternative to R- refrigerated food processing and EPA proposed and is establishing a 404A and was in the process of dispensing equipment category change of status date for refrigerated releasing R-449A compressors for use in specifically. The latter comment only food processing and dispensing remote condensing units.137 This mentioned ‘‘dispensing equipment’’ and equipment of January 1, 2021, which the technology and know-how could then did not mention equipment that may Agency finds is a reasonable yet likely translate into the refrigerated food also process food and beverages as well expeditious date by which the technical processing and dispensing equipment as dispensing it. As such EPA views challenges can be met for a safe and market, thereby allowing a transition by these statements as indicative of the smooth transition to alternatives the January 1, 2021, change of status availability of alternatives for a portion particularly considering the need for date. but not necessarily all of the equipment equipment to comply with any Information was also supplied by within this end-use category. sanitation and safety standards while equipment manufacturers regarding the EPA finds however that the progress continuing to maintain the properties, use of R-290 specifically or HCs using R-744 is far enough along to characteristics and quality of the food or generically in this equipment. An consider that it will be available for the beverage provided by the equipment. As environmental organization indicated vast majority, if not all, of the discussed below and in our response to that equipment using R-290 is already equipment in this end-use category that comments, EPA relied on information being used in markets outside the are using refrigerants subject to status from an equipment manufacturer United States and recommended finding change by January 1, 2021. As noted in claimed as CBI that estimated different R-290 and R-600a acceptable subject to the proposal (81 FR 22856; April 18, conversion periods based on two use conditions. EPA has not received a 2016), the Coca-Cola Company, which refrigerants—specifically three years for submission for these refrigerants purchases equipment in this and other R-448A and five years for R-744—and specifically for the refrigerated food retail food refrigeration end-use the technical hurdles posed by those processing and dispensing equipment categories, has announced their plans to refrigerants. While current efforts are end-use category. If in the future we convert to non-HFC technologies for all focused on using those two refrigerants, decide to list these as acceptable, they new cold-drink equipment by 2015, and there are a number of other refrigerants would be included in a Notice of selected R-744 as its refrigerant of listed as acceptable for this end-use that Acceptability published in the Federal choice.138 The Coca-Cola Company has manufacturers may also choose to use. Register, or, if we were to propose already placed over 1.4 million HFC- However, there is no information that finding them acceptable subject to use free units globally (80 FR 42919–42920; suggests that a conversion period for restrictions or unacceptable, we would July 20, 2015) and it was reported that these other refrigerants would be any publish a separate proposed rule. the company would only ‘‘narrowly quicker than that for R-448A and R-744. Equipment manufacturers also miss’’ its 2015 target to be HFC-free.139 To address what alternatives might be submitted comments on some but not The demand created by this company available and when, comments were all of the acceptable refrigerants not for R-744 in this end-use category (as provided by manufacturers and an proposed for status change. One well as for commercial refrigeration association representing manufacturers manufacturer deemed HFC-134a as not equipment in other end use categories regarding certain refrigerants not appropriate for their equipment while a addressed in a previous rule) is currently acceptable in this end-use second manufacturer indicated that expected to increase the availability of category. Information was provided for refrigerant is typically used for R-744 components over the next several R-448A and R-449A, two HFC/HFO refrigerated (as opposed to freezing) years. The time provided by the status blends designed to mimic the properties applications in this end-use category. change date will allow other of R-404A, and one manufacturer and an Based on these comments, EPA components to be developed, for association representing manufacturers recognizes that HFC-134a is available example to provide R-744 compressors requested we find them acceptable for for a portion of this end-use category, designed for this end-use category rather this end-use category. As noted above, but additional time would be required than the ‘‘continuous, longer run concurrent with this rule EPA is listing for it, or other acceptable alternatives, to systems’’ as mentioned by an equipment R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B acceptable be considered available for all of this manufacturer. Further, as this company in this end-use. EPA views the interest end-use category. purchases equipment from other expressed by comments to be indicative One manufacturer provided technical suppliers, EPA expects that similar of the progress being made in this end- information regarding the challenges equipment, and the components used by use category and the likely future use of with using R-744 although as mentioned such equipment, will become more R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B. As noted above information claimed as CBI above, information claimed as CBI indicated at least one equipment 138 Coca-Cola, 2014. ‘‘Coca-Cola Installs 1 indicates a transition to one of these manufacturer was planning to transition Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, Preventing refrigerants could occur by January 1, to that refrigerants. A state agency 5.25MM Metrics Tons of CO2.’’ January 22, 2014. 2021, and was being planned by a indicated that low-GWP refrigerants This document is accessible at http://www.coca- colacompany.com/press-center/press-releases/coca- manufacturer of equipment for this end- including R-744 ‘‘are currently available cola-installs-1-millionth-hfc-free-cooler-globally- use category. EPA discussed the status for refrigeration in retail food.’’ Also, a preventing-525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2. of these HFC/HFO blends and the 139 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Magazine, availability of their HFO components in 137 Tecumseh, 2016. ‘‘Tecumseh Outlines 2015. ‘‘Coca Cola to narrowly miss HFC-free global a previous action (80 FR 42870; July 20, Position on Refrigerant Transition.’’ January 25, refrigeration target.’’ March 20, 2015. This 2016. This document is accessible at http:// document is accessible at www.racplus.com/news/ 2015). For instance, we concluded then www.tecumseh.com/en/North-America/Newsroom/ cocacola-to-narrowly-miss-hfc-free-global- that there was ample supply of these Press-Releases/2016/2016-AHR-Press-Release. refrigerationtarget/8680290.article.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86834 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

widely available in the market. While Comment: UTC, Refrigerants HFC-134a unacceptable ‘‘for systems today’s action allows less time than the Naturally!, Chemours, EIA, NRDC, and where there are environmentally safe, five-year transition time estimated by a IGSD agreed with EPA’s proposal to low GWP alternatives.’’ Information manufacturer in information claimed as change the status of refrigerants for this claimed as CBI indicated that a CBI for a full transition of R-404A end-use category. manufacturer plans to transition from equipment to R-744, EPA believes based Response: EPA thanks the HFC-134a after converting its R-404A on experience to date and the market commenters for the comments. equipment. built by the demand created by the Comment: AHRI and UTC both Response: EPA did not propose to Coca-Cola Company will allow for a claimed that the number of currently change the status of HFC-134a for this faster transition than the commenter listed acceptable substitutes is limited end-use category and we are not taking estimated. and that EPA should list R-448A and R- such action today. While we recognize Based on this information claimed as 449A as acceptable for this end-use that there are plans to transition from CBI and other comments as discussed category. Tecumseh suggested listing HFC-134a by at least one manufacturer, above, we find that a January 1, 2021, those two refrigerants and R-452A as the information provided did not offer change of status date is necessary to acceptable. sufficient basis to determine when provide a reasonable yet expeditious Response: As shown in Table 12, alternatives would be available for the time for the transition to acceptable multiple refrigerants are acceptable for limited applications within this end-use alternatives to occur. this end-use category. After the proposal category that rely on HFC-134a. was published, but before the comment c. How is EPA responding to comments? period closed, EPA added another ii. Change of Status Date EPA received several comments from alternative to the list of acceptable Comment: Three commenters individuals and organizations with refrigerants in this end-use category, submitted information regarding the various interests in the refrigerants specifically R-513A. R-448A, R-449A, R- technical challenges of using certain industry. Comments addressed the 449B, and R-452A have been submitted refrigerants that have been submitted to proposed status change date of January to the SNAP Program for review. EPA for review but for which EPA has 1, 2021, the refrigerants proposed for Concurrent with this rule, EPA is not made a listing decision. UTC stated status change, the technical challenges finding R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B that the time to transition different of using refrigerants remaining acceptable for new refrigerated food products ‘‘may vary based on technical acceptable and other refrigerants that processing and dispensing equipment. challenges with product sensory may be listed as acceptable in the EPA has not proposed or made a final characteristics and differences in future, energy efficiency, and other rules listing decision for R-452A in the dispense rate requirements.’’ They and standards that may apply to refrigerated food processing and indicated that a challenge for using R- equipment in this end-use category. dispensing equipment end-use category. 448A, which they proposed should be Commenters included AHRI, an If in the future we decide to list this as found acceptable, existed with the industry organization; Arkema and acceptable, it would be included in a compressor discharge temperature Chemours, chemical producers; CARB, a Notice of Acceptability published in the which might reduce the compressor state agency; EIA, NRDC and IGSD, Federal Register. Likewise, if we were reliability. Stoelting requested an environmental organizations; and to propose finding it acceptable, subject extension (of unspecified time) or Stoelting, Tecumseh and UTC, to use restrictions or unacceptable, we exemption to continue to use R-404A. equipment and component would publish a separate proposed rule. They stated that ‘‘R-448 or R-449 have manufacturers. Additional comments Comment: Responding to EPA’s an inherent temperature glide of 8 °F claimed as CBI were submitted. statement in the preamble to the [4.4 °C] or more’’ that causes two issues. We have grouped comments together proposed rule that currently HCs such They stated that they could not and responded to the issues raised by as R-290, R-600a and R-443A are not ‘‘account for the fractionation’’ of such the comments in the sections that listed as acceptable in this end-use refrigerants in equipment with flooded follow, or in a separate Response to category, UTC and Stoelting identified evaporators. They also stated that Comments document which is included technical challenges affecting the meeting the temperature variances in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– potential use of these refrigerants in this required (+/¥1 °F [0.56 °C]) would be OAR–2015–0663). end-use category. EIA recommended difficult and lead to a ‘‘too cold/firm’’ that EPA find R-290 and R-600a region and a ‘‘too warm/soft’’ region. i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed acceptable, subject to use conditions as Information submitted and claimed as Comment: UTC was in general soon as possible. They indicated that CBI estimated that at least three years agreement with how EPA defined this manufacturers are already making R-290 was needed to transition to R-448A, if end-use category, but pointed out that refrigerated dispensing systems abroad it is found acceptable. ‘‘soft-serve and other frozen dairy treats pointing to equipment offered by several Response: EPA recognizes that may not fall within the technical companies, and felt this demonstrates a challenges exist with any transition and definition of ice-cream due to milk fat change in status is feasible. based on the technical information content.’’ They also stated that ‘‘it Response: EPA did not propose and is provided for this end-use EPA is appears a creamer dispenser not taking action regarding the use of establishing a change of status date of (refrigerated unit dispensing creamer in HCs in this end-use category at this January 1, 2021. EPA notes that there a dosed amount) and bulk milk time. In any future action EPA may take are refrigerants currently listed as dispensers (refrigerated unit holding a addressing the use of HCs in this end- acceptable that would alleviate or container of milk that dispenses through use, EPA would consider relevant eliminate the concern regarding a small nozzle when the handle is lifted) technical information such as the temperature glide that Stoelting would fit in this category as well.’’ availability of equipment operating on mentioned. For instance, R-744 as a Response: As noted previously in R-290 in markets outside the United pure substance does not have a section VI.A.7.a.i, EPA agrees that the States. temperature glide, although separate type of equipment identified by the Comment: An initiative of a group of limitations were discussed by UTC as commenter falls within this end-use. companies encouraged EPA to find explained in the following comment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86835

Also, while R-450A is zeotropic, it has for this end-use category by CARB’s composed of three main categories of a low temperature glide that presumably suggested January 1, 2020 date. equipment. Household freezers only can be addressed based on past Nonetheless, although specific offer storage space at freezing experience with R-404A, another low- comments suggesting the solutions to temperatures, while household glide zeotropic blend. In addition, R- the technical concerns raised were not refrigerators only offer storage space at 513A is an azeotrope with no provided, the transition by the Coca- non-freezing temperatures. Products temperature glide. Cola Company and other comments with both a refrigerator and freezer in a With respect to the other issues indicate that such solutions exist and single unit are most common. In concerning R-448A discussed by UTC, can be implemented. As discussed in addition to the three main categories of concurrent with this rule, EPA is listing section VI.A.7.b.ii above, EPA finds that equipment, other small refrigerated R-448A as acceptable in this end-use. As R-744 will be available for most if not household appliances exist (i.e., chilled noted above, information provided and all of the equipment in this end-use kitchen drawers, wine coolers, and claimed as CBI indicates a transition to category by the change of status date, mini-fridges) that are also within this R-448A is feasible by the change of and sees various paths forward in the end use. Household refrigerators and status date established. case that it is not fully available for all freezers have all refrigeration Comment: UTC emphasized that such equipment. components integrated, and for the sufficient time is needed to transition smallest types, the refrigeration circuit iii. Relationship With Other Rules equipment to refrigerants not subject to is entirely brazed or welded. These status change. They described multiple Comment: In response to EPA’s systems are charged with refrigerant at challenges with using R-744, which is request for comment on applicable DOE the factory and typically require only an currently listed as acceptable. One energy conservation standards for electricity supply to begin operation. challenge they described is the equipment in this end-use category, The 2014 ASHRAE Handbook of additional space required in the heat UTC indicated that there are currently Refrigeration provides an overview of exchangers and that this additional no DOE directives or requirements for food preservation in regards to space requirement must be balanced this equipment. They also indicated the household refrigerators and freezers. with the need to minimize increases in American Society for Testing and Generally, a storage temperature footprints which would be difficult to Materials (ASTM International) was between 32 and 39 °F (0 to 3.9 °C) is accommodate in many foodservice developing a test standard for this desirable for preserving fresh food. settings that utilize this equipment. The equipment, implying such a standard Humidity and higher or lower commenter further indicated the might form the basis of future DOE temperatures are more suitable for challenges with ‘‘compressor rulemaking. They also indicated that certain foods and beverages. Wine availability, compressor operating European rules covering ice-cream and envelope, refrigerant controls chillers, for example, are frequently shake machines are being drafted. used for storing wine, and have slightly availability (in our capacity range), Response: EPA thanks the commenter footprint, and cost.’’ Another challenge higher optimal temperatures from 45 to for this information regarding the 65 °F (7.2 to 18.3 °C). Freezers and with R-744 noted was the need to design development of testing standards and for higher operating pressures and a combination refrigerator-freezers that the current status of DOE and European are designed to store food for long more complex cooling cycle. The requirements for this equipment. We ° commenter also stated that additional durations have temperatures below 8 F did not consider possible future action (¥13.3 °C) and are designed to hold work on the compressor designs was by ASTM or DOE in establishing a ° ¥ needed to develop models that are temperatures near 0 to 5 F ( 17.7 to change of status date for this end-use ¥15 °C). In single-door refrigerators, the suited for the varying cooling demands category, but if one or both those actions of this type of equipment as opposed to optimum conditions for food occur, EPA could consider it at that preservation are typically warmer than other applications where R-744 time. compressors are used. For example, this due to the fact that food storage is UTC stated that ‘‘R-744 compressors iv. Industry Standards and Codes not intended for long-term storage. have been traditionally designed for Comment: UTC provided a list of DOE energy conservation standards continuous, longer run system.’’ CARB multiple industry standards, including apply to household refrigerators and however stated that R-744 is currently ones from the Canadian Standards freezers, as discussed in section available for retail food refrigeration, Association (CSA,) UL, and IEC that VI.A.9.b.ii. arguing for a 2020 status change date, apply to this equipment. The i. What refrigerants are used in while information claimed as CBI commenter did not indicate how the household refrigerators and freezers? indicated at least one equipment information was related to the proposal. manufacturer was already planning to Response: EPA thanks the commenter The following alternatives are convert to R-744 in the future. This for the information regarding standards. currently acceptable for new household information claimed as CBI by an refrigerators and freezers: FOR12A, equipment manufacturer estimated that 8. Change of Listing Status for Certain FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, IKON A, they would need at least a five-year HFC Refrigerants for New Household IKON B, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a timeframe to transition to R-744. Refrigerators and Freezers (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-290, R-404A, R- Response: EPA agrees that some a. Background 407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, challenges exist when converting to R- R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R- 744, but the technical progress to date i. What is the affected end-use? 422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-427A, in using this refrigerant in various Household refrigerators, freezers and R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R- applications indicates these challenges combination refrigerator/freezers are 441A, R-450A, R-513A, R-507A, R-600a, can be met by the change of status date. intended primarily for residential use, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 Although some components are although they may be used outside the formulation), SP34E, THR-02 and THR- available, R-744 components have not home. The designs and refrigeration 03. Of those, R-290, R-441A and R-600a yet become widely available and could capacities of equipment vary widely. are acceptable, subject to use not currently satisfy the entire market Household refrigerators and freezers are conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86836 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Currently, the most commonly used Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and and freezers (76 FR 78832, December 20, refrigerant in the United States for Heat Pumps Technical Options 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). household refrigerators and freezers is Committee (RTOC) projects that by 2020 b. What is EPA’s final decision? R-134a, an HFC with a GWP of 1,430. about 75 percent of new household However, throughout many parts of the refrigerators globally will use R-600a, a For new household refrigerators and world, R-600a with a GWP of small percentage will use HFOs, and the freezers, EPA proposed to change as of approximately four is the most rest will use HFC-134a. There are other January 1, 2021, the status of the commonly used refrigerant and there are alternatives that may be determined to following refrigerants from acceptable to ongoing efforts to help facilitate the work well in this end use. For example, unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC- adoption and continued use of R-600a R-450A and R-513A, which EPA has 134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a in this industry globally.140 The listed as acceptable for use in this end- (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R- European Union (EU) banned the use of use (79 FR 62863, October 21, 2014; 80 407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, HFCs with a GWP greater than 150 FR 42053, July 16, 2015, respectively), R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- (which includes R-134a) for household were designed to match the 422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, refrigerators and freezers as of January 1, characteristics and performance of HFC- R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 2015.141 R-600a has been used in 134a. formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), Europe for approximately two decades. In addition to R-600a, EPA previously SP34E, and THR-03. In this action, we Throughout parts of Asia, Africa, and found a number of other flammable HC are finalizing the status changes as South America, R-600a is the dominant refrigerants including R-290 and R-441A proposed. The change of status refrigerant for this end-use. In its 2014 and R-600a as acceptable, subject to use determinations for new household assessment report,142 the TEAP’s conditions in household refrigerators refrigerators and freezers:

TABLE 13—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

End-use Substitutes Listing status

Household refrig- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R- Unacceptable as of January 1, erators and freez- 404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R- 2021. ers (new only). 422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R- 507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03.

i. How do these unacceptable alternatives that are being found refrigerators and freezers may be found refrigerants compare to other unacceptable compared with other in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– refrigerants for this end-use with respect alternatives listed as acceptable (81 FR HQ–OAR–2015–0663). to SNAP criteria? 22858; April 18, 2016). In addition, a The refrigerants we are listing as Other refrigerants for new household technical support document 143 that unacceptable through this action have refrigerators and freezers are HFC-152a, provides the Federal Register citations insignificant ODP and they have GWPs IKON A, IKON B, THR-02; R-513A, R- concerning data on the SNAP criteria ranging from 920 to 3,990. As shown in 450A, R-290, R-441A and R-600a. In the (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, Table 14, the other alternatives, listed as proposed rule, EPA provided flammability) for acceptable alternatives acceptable or as acceptable, subject to information on the environmental and as well as those we are finding use conditions, have GWP ranging from health risks presented by the unacceptable for new household three to 630.

TABLE 14—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF REFRIGERANTS IN NEW HOUSEHOLD REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

IKON A, IKON B, R-290, R-441A, R-600a, THR-02 ...... 3–560 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. HFC-152a ...... 124 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. R-450A, R-513A ...... 600–630 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. HFC-134a ...... 1,430 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. FOR12A, FOR12B, R-426A, RS-24 (2002 composition), SP34E, THR-03 .. 920–1,510 0—Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A ...... 1,770–2,630 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-417A, R-422B, R-422D, R- 1,810–2,730 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 424A, R-437A, R-438A, RS-44 (2003 composition). R-404A, R-421B, R-507A ...... 3,190–3,990 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. R-422A, R-422C, R-428A, R-434A ...... 3,080–3,610 0 ...... Yes 4 ...... Unacceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses. 2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3 The ODP of one or more alternatives is not published here in order to avoid disclosing information that is claimed as confidential business in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the refrigerant are VOC.

140 ORNL, 2015. ORNL’s JUMP Challenge: JUMP http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ available%20in%20English%20only/RTOC- in to Advance Tech Innovation! Presented by Brian ?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG. Assessment-Report-2014.pdf. Fricke, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. November 142 RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, 143 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- 17, 2015. Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of 141 EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the Options Committee. Available at: http:// Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing conf.montreal-protocol.org/meeting/mop/mop-27/ Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available online at: presession/Background%20Documents%20are%20 Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86837

Three substitutes that remain freezers in the original SNAP rule EPA noted in a previous action that ‘‘we acceptable, subject to use conditions, R- indicating ‘‘[a]lthough HFC-152a is do not have a practice in the SNAP 290, R-600a, and R-441A, are HCs or a flammable, a risk assessment program of including energy efficiency blend of HCs. R-290 and R-600a are demonstrated it could be used safely in in the overall risk analysis’’ but also VOCs while R-441A is a blend this end-use’’ (59 FR 13081; March 18, pointed out that ‘‘[w]e do, however, composed primarily of compounds that 1994). Toxicity is not a significant consider issues such as technical needs are VOC. EPA’s analysis indicates that concern for the refrigerants we are for energy efficiency (e.g., to meet DOE their use as refrigerants in this end-use listing as unacceptable. Their toxicity is standards) in determining whether is not expected to contribute comparable to that of other alternatives alternatives are ‘available.’ ’’ (80 FR significantly to ground level ozone that are acceptable in this end-use. The 42921; July 20, 2015). Hence, we find formation.144 In the action in which refrigerants subject to the status change that the need for household refrigerator EPA listed these refrigerants as and the refrigerants not subject to the and freezers to meet DOE energy acceptable, subject to use conditions (80 status change, if listed under ASHRAE efficiency standards plays a part in FR 19454; April 10, 2015), EPA 34 (2013), are classified as Class A determining the availability of concluded none of these refrigerants as refrigerants (lower toxicity). alternatives and factors into our used in this end-use pose significantly In summary, because the risks other decision on the applicable change of greater risk to ground-level ozone than GWP are not significantly different status date. formation than other alternative for the other available alternatives than With a change of status date of 2021, refrigerants that are not VOCs or that are for those we proposed to list as the evidence presented indicates that specifically excluded from the unacceptable, and because the GWPs for current models—already meeting the definition of VOC under CAA the refrigerants we proposed to list as current DOE standards—when regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) unacceptable are significantly higher redesigned for alternative refrigerants addressing the development of SIPs to and thus pose significantly greater risk, are expected to continue to meet those attain and maintain the NAAQS. we are listing the following refrigerants existing standards. In fact, comments The refrigerants not subject to this as unacceptable: FOR12A, FOR12B, indicate an increase in energy efficiency action are highly volatile and typically HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a with some of the acceptable alternatives, evaporate or partition to air, rather than (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R- some of which have been implemented contaminating surface waters. Their 407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, in products both in the U.S. market and effects on aquatic life are expected to be R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- globally. See for example comments small and pose no greater risk of aquatic 422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, from Electrolux and NRDC. or ecosystem effects than those of the R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 Furthermore, as the typical compliance refrigerants that are subject to the status formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), period for DOE energy efficiency change for this end-use. SP34E, and THR-03. regulations is three years from the date issued, a status change date over four With the exception of HFC-152a, R- ii. When will the status change? 290, R-600a and R-441A, all other years from today gives manufacturers refrigerants listed as acceptable, As proposed, EPA is establishing a should provide a more than adequate including those we are listing as change of status date for new household period of time to redesign models to unacceptable, are not flammable. R-290 refrigerators and freezers of January 1, meet such standards with an alternative and R-600a, which are HCs, and R- 2021. There are technical challenges refrigerant. This time frame also allows 441A, which is a blend of HCs, are that must be met for a safe and smooth manufacturers time to redesign models classified as A3 refrigerants by ASHRAE transition to alternatives, particularly considering the use conditions that Standard 34–2013, indicating that they considering the likely use of one or must be met if a flammable acceptable have low toxicity and high more of the flammable alternatives. The alternative is chosen, as discussed flammability, while HFC-152a is primary step that must occur for a above. classified as an A2 refrigerant, transition is product design work for We understand however that there indicating that it has low toxicity and alternative refrigerants, drawing from may be limitations with regard to the low flammability. To address current models used both in the United availability of testing facilities in the flammability, EPA listed these R-290, R- States and elsewhere. For those event that, in the midst of this 441A and R-600a as acceptable, subject designing with flammable refrigerants, implementation of new models with to use conditions. The use conditions this would include complying with the alternative refrigerants, the energy include conditions consistent with use conditions EPA established when efficiency requirements were to change industry standards, limits on charge listing those refrigerants as acceptable in a manner that required redesigning size, and requirements for warnings and (76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011, and models to meet the new efficiency markings on equipment to inform FR 80 1954; April 10, 2015). Although standards DOE has not initiated the consumers and technicians of potential some models have recently and others process under which new energy flammability hazards. Our assessment are currently transitioning, efficiency standards would be EPA recognizes that manufacturers and listing decisions (76 FR 78832; promulgated. Commenters have will need time to continue product December 20, 2011 and FR 80 19454; suggested that this process could begin design work for alternative refrigerants, April 10, 2015) found that the overall as early as 2017 with an eventual drawing from current models used both compliance date of 2024 or 2025. risk, including the risk due to in the United States and elsewhere. flammability with the use conditions, is Therefore, at this point in time it is not Household refrigerators are subject to evident that there will be any constraint not significantly greater than for other DOE energy conservation standards and refrigerants listed as acceptable at that on laboratory availability to meet the will need to be tested to demonstrate January 1, 2021, status change date in time. EPA found HFC-152a acceptable compliance with those standards.145 for new household refrigerators and this rule. Should DOE finalize new energy efficiency standards for 145 DOE’s previous energy conservation household refrigerators-freezers in the 144 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact rulemaking for this end-use was finalized in 2011 of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level with a compliance date of September 15, 2014 (76 next few years, EPA could consider at Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. FR 57516; September 15, 2011). that time whether laboratory availability

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

issues might affect the transition to be used in place of another without any refrigerators and freezers safety alternative refrigerants by the 2021 modification to the relevant piece of standard. AHAM and Sub Zero change of status date. refrigeration equipment. While suggested there would be a small equipment manufacturers may prefer to environmental impact from moving the c. How is EPA responding to comments? use HC refrigerants as they do in other change of status date to 2024. Whirlpool EPA received several comments from markets, EPA believes that R-450A and also recommended a transition date of organizations with various interests in R-513A may meet the characteristics 2024 due to the design and engineering the household refrigerators and freezers that AHAM uses to define ‘‘drop-in’’ changes that would be necessary. end-use. Several commenters replacements. These are non-flammable Electrolux noted that they could commented on the proposed January 1, and were developed to have transition out of HFC based refrigerants 2021, change of status date. Other characteristics similar to R-134a. That by January 1, 2021, if the charge size comments focused on substitutes and said, EPA finds that the change of status limit on HC refrigerants could be end-use proposed, industry standards date provides sufficient time for increased. NRDC, IGSD, and EIA urged and codes, and general comments such redesigning to use HC refrigerants if so EPA to maintain the proposed status as the need for technician training. preferred by equipment manufacturers. change date of January 1, 2021, and Commenters included AHAM, a trade noted requests for extended delays are ii. Change of Status Date association; and three equipment completely unwarranted given that manufacturers, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, Comment: Chemours, a chemical refrigerator manufacturers have offered and Electrolux. EPA also received producer, supported the change of models with R-600a for over a decade comments from Arkema and Chemours, status for the refrigerants proposed to be outside the United States. chemical producers; NRDC, IGSD and listed as unacceptable, noting that it has Response: EPA appreciates points EIA, environmental organizations; UL, a sufficient supply of commercial raised by AHAM, Sub Zero, and safety consulting and certification replacement solutions with comparable Whirlpool and understands that company; and CARB, a state agency. or improved energy efficiency compared challenges exist; however we do not We have grouped comments together to the substitutes subject to the agree that additional time beyond what and responded to the issues raised by proposed status change. UL commented was proposed is needed. We understand the comments in the sections that on the proposed change of status for that time is needed for adapting certain follow, or in a separate Response to HFC-134a for use in this end-use, stating model designs to the U.S. market but do Comments document which is included it did not expect to be adversely not believe the commenters have in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– impacted by any testing or retesting of provided sufficient information to OAR–2015–0663). refrigerators and freezers due to indicate that more time than what EPA i. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed proposed provision. proposed would be needed. Although Response: EPA acknowledges UL’s the comments did not provide a detailed Comment: AHAM noted that although statement that under the proposed analysis of what steps are required to alternatives have been approved for and timeline for the change of status of R- complete a transition and how long each can be used in refrigerators and freezers, 134a they do not anticipate any step takes, and whether steps can occur the only viable alternative is R-600a and difficulty in providing laboratory simultaneously or must occur in series, there are no available ‘‘drop-ins.’’ capacity to perform any testing needed we find that much component AHAM also noted that while the for newly designed refrigerators and equipment development can occur at appliance industry is moving to replace freezers and we have considered this the same time as other product design HFC refrigerants in their products and information in determining an work. In other words, as certain has produced and sold hundreds of appropriate change of status date. In components become available, millions of units safely around the addition, we considered whether there appropriate units could be redesigned world using HC alternatives, factories was sufficient manufacturing capacity using those components, prototypes must be reengineered, and education, for substitutes by Chemours and other could be built and tested, and final logistics and disposal systems would chemical producers in order to meet the designs could be manufactured. While need to be established to manage the established change of status date and redesigns and prototypes are developed, safe transportation, servicing and determined that production would be additional components can be disposal of flammable refrigerants in more than sufficient for a January 1, developed as needed for other designs. North America. Whirlpool also 2021, change of status date. Indeed, once product models are commented that major manufacturing Comment: Several commenters designed, testing and certification could changes are required across the industry commented on the proposed January 1, take place while additional models are to achieve widespread use of flammable 2021, change of status date for designed. refrigerants. Three environmental household refrigerators and freezers. We agree with NRDC, IGSD, and EIA organizations, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA, AHAM and Sub Zero suggested that a that a status change date of January 1, along with a state government agency, complete transition date should be no 2021, can be met, and will allow CARB, and a chemical producer, earlier than 2024. AHAM noted that, sufficient time for manufacturers to Chemours, supported EPA’s proposal to while the industry is moving to replace redesign any products that require change the status of HFC-134a in this HFC refrigerants in products, this additional engineering to meet this rule. end-use. transition process is expensive, time EPA notes that R-600a is currently being Response: EPA appreciates comments consuming, and industry faces technical used in more than 500 million submitted in support of the proposed challenges. AHAM and Whirlpool household refrigerator and freezer units rule and thanks commenters. As to suggested that the proposed change of worldwide, including some units in the AHAM’s comments that there are no status date would create significant United States.146 Additionally, although ‘‘drop-in’’ substitutes for this end use, difficulties in designing products with changing the charge size limit for although EPA prefers not to use the term flammable refrigerants while also hydrocarbon refrigerants as mentioned ‘‘drop-in,’’ it is sometimes used by meeting DOE energy conservation by Electrolux is beyond the scope of this various parties to refer to the standards and charge size limitations for circumstance where one refrigerant can flammable refrigerants in the UL 146 (TEAP, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86839

rule, many manufacturers have already stated that building codes do not yet DOE, ASHRAE and AHRI and identified a portion of their products support use of flammable materials at a understands that other stakeholders that they could redesign using R-290 sufficient charge size. CARB mentioned have been invited to join this effort. under the existing limit. EPA notes that the $5.2 million commitment While there may be opportunities to refrigeration and AC equipment announced on June 2, 2016, by DOE, make changes to applicable standards, manufacturers are not required to use AHRI, and ASHRAE discussed and subsequently change the use any of the flammable refrigerants listed previously to fund vital research that conditions that currently apply, such as acceptable, subject to use conditions will establish a more robust fact base changes are beyond the scope of this in this action; we expect that those who about the properties and uses of rule. If and when those standards are choose to do so will plan accordingly flammable refrigerants. This new harmonized, EPA could consider for any changes required at the factory research program will help provide the whether to revise the SNAP listing and in the designs of the products they technical knowledge needed to facilitate consistent with the new standards. This manufacture. We note that R-450A and and accelerate the safe use of these action is based on the Agency’s view R-513A, which are not subject to status refrigerants. NRDC and IGSD that the other alternatives including change, will not require as many commented that, in addition to those acceptable to use conditions are changes to the equipment design finalizing the change of status date for feasible for use, as demonstrated by particularly since these are HFC-134a in new household several manufacturers, including GE nonflammable and operate with similar refrigerators and freezers, EPA should and BOSCH. We understand that other characteristics to HFC-134a. revisit the charge size limit of 57 g for manufacturers are earlier in the process Regarding the comment that there HC refrigerants used in any refrigerator, of designing equipment using would be little environmental impact by freezer, or combination refrigerator and alternatives that remain acceptable and delaying the change of status date until freezer for each circuit. NRDC and IGSD EPA has established a change of status 2024, we do not consider that as part of also recommended that UL and AHAM date of January 1, 2021 to allow time for the analysis for determining the ‘‘review the technical justification for manufacturers to address the technical appropriate change of status date. We such a wide gulf between U.S. and challenges. consider environmental effects, as part international safety standards and close iv. Other Suggestions or Requests of the SNAP review criteria for it as soon as possible.’’ Similarly, EIA determining whether safer alternatives commented that ‘‘the current UL 250 Comment: AHAM recommended that service personnel must be trained to are available. Once we have determined charge size limit of 57 g of R-600a is adequately protect themselves and that other alternatives can be used that effectively and unnecessarily consumers from activities that may be pose less risk we look at the technical prohibiting market penetration of low- routine for handling equipment with challenges of a transition and the GWP hydrocarbon systems in the non-flammable refrigerants but that are availability of alternatives to identify a U.S.... Even with the current overly not protective when servicing reasonable but expeditious change of restrictive UL standard in place, equipment with flammable HC status date that reflects when manufacturers have R-600a based refrigerants. AHAM commented that alternatives can be used broadly within systems on the U.S. market, though the repairing leaks or replacing/filling the end-use. Regarding Arkema’s charge size is a major restriction to specific suggestion for a change of status refrigerant lines will involve new refrigerator volume, or substantially training techniques that must be date of 2025, EPA does not agree that increases the price if dual compressor equipment being hermetically sealed developed and communicated. systems are used to make a standard justifies a later change of status date. As Response: EPA is not taking action in sized U.S. refrigerator.’’ EIA noted, EPA has determined that other this rulemaking regarding the use of recommended that, while the UL 471 alternatives pose less risk than those for flammable refrigerants for this end-use harmonization process to replace UL which the status is being changed can and thus this comment is outside the 250 continues, EPA should recognize reasonably be used earlier than 2025. scope of this rulemaking. However, we the 150 g charge size limit under the Even assuming that the commenter is note that we are aware that at least two currently recognized International correct that alternatives may be used in organizations—RSES and the ESCO Electrochemical Commission (IEC) a manner that would pose even less risk Institute—have developed technician standard (IEC 60335–2–89) as an at a later date, such an assumption training programs in collaboration with would not justify delaying the change of acceptable use condition for the sale of refrigeration equipment manufacturers status date. Manufacturers could still household refrigerators and freezers and users that address safe use of choose to manufacture new equipment using HCs in the United States. EIA flammable refrigerant substitutes. In that is hermetically sealed in 2025 and believes this will help support the addition, EPA has reviewed several beyond. proposed change of status date of training programs provided as part of January 1, 2021, for HFC-134a. EIA SNAP submissions from persons iii. Industry Standards and Codes referenced their October 2015 petition interested in flammable refrigerant Comment: AHAM, Whirlpool, NRDC, to the Agency requesting that EPA substitutes. The Agency intends to IGSD, and EIA discussed charge size incorporate by reference the IEC update the test bank for technician limitations for flammable refrigerants in standard 60335–2–89 as the basis for certification under CAA section 608 as the UL refrigerators and freezers safety charge size limitations as use conditions we have done previously, and will standard. Whirlpool and Electrolux for R-290 and R-600a in household consider including additional questions noted the need for a new safety standard refrigerators and freezers. on flammable refrigerants. By adding that would replace the current UL Response: EPA understands the such questions to the test bank, EPA standard that has established the charge interest in reconsidering safe charge would supplement but would not size limit of HC-based refrigerants to 57 limits and the potential for UL and IEC replace technician training programs g. Electrolux suggested that this charge standards to be harmonized. EPA currently provided by non-government size limit should be harmonized with understands that there are efforts in this entities. EPA will seek additional the IEC 60335–2–40 standard in place in direction underway. EPA is encouraged information and guidance on how best the European Market at 150 g. Arkema by the June 2016 announcement by to incorporate this content through a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

separate process outside the scope of vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is HD vans, with Daimler and Nissan this final rule. a measure of the combined curb (empty) producing the remaining approximately 151 B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning weight and cargo carrying capacity of five percent of HD vans. In many the truck. Table 15 outlines the HD cases, these types of HD vehicles are 1. Background vehicle weight classifications commonly versions of their LD counterparts.152 For The vehicle types that are addressed used. MDPVs,149 HD pickup trucks, and example, the Silverado 1500, Ram 1500, in this action include limited types of HD vans are Class 2b and 3 vehicles and Ford F–150 are the LD counterparts HD vehicles, specifically, MDPVs,147 with GVWRs between 8,501 and 14,000 of the HD Silverado 2500/3500, Ram HD trucks, and complete HD vans.148 lb. These vehicle types are similar to LD 2500/3500, and Ford F–250/F–350/F– EPA has previously listed HFO-1234yf vehicles technologically and most are 450 pickup trucks.153 The primary as acceptable, subject to use conditions, manufactured in a similar manner to LD difference between HD pickup trucks in light-duty (LD) motor vehicles and vehicles by companies with major light- and vans and their LD counterpart trucks (76 FR 17490; March 29, 2011). duty markets in the United States.150 vehicles is that HD pickups and vans are The types of HD vehicles addressed in Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler occupational or work vehicles that are this action are in many ways more Automobiles (FCA) produce designed for much higher towing and similar to LD vehicles than they are to approximately100 percent of HD pickup payload capabilities compared to LD the HD vehicles with a higher gross trucks and approximately 95 percent of pickups and vans.

TABLE 15—VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION

Class 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8

GVWR (lb)...... 8,501–10,000 10,001–14,000 14,001–16,000 16,001–19,500 19,501–26,000 26,001–33,000 >33,000

All types of HD vehicles can be sold section of the Act, which are codified at information on listing HFO-1234yf as as ‘‘complete’’ or ‘‘incomplete’’ vehicles subpart F of 40 CFR part 82. acceptable subject to use conditions for (76 FR 57259–60; September 15, 2011). Additionally, CAA section 609 some incomplete HD vans. One Complete vehicles are sold by vehicle establishes standards and requirements commenter provided information to manufacturers to end-users with no regarding servicing of MVAC systems. EPA and EPA will consider that secondary manufacturer making Under section 609, no person repairing information to determine whether to substantial modifications prior to or servicing motor vehicles for take further action regarding the listing 154 registration and use. Incomplete consideration may perform any of HFO-1234yf for use in incomplete HD vehicles are sold by vehicle service on an MVAC that involves the vans. manufacturers to secondary refrigerant without properly using As explained in section VI.B.1, manufacturers without the primary approved refrigerant recovery or load-carrying device or container recovery and recycling equipment and section 608 of the CAA prohibits the attached. See section VI.B.1 of the no such person may perform such knowing venting, release or disposal of proposed rule for additional information service unless such person has been all refrigerants by any person on HD vehicles and the vehicle types properly trained and certified. This maintaining, servicing, repairing or within the MVAC end-use that are action will not have a direct impact on disposing of an appliance or IPR in a addressed in this action. EPA’s regulations under section 609. manner which permits the refrigerant to For further information on the enter the environment, except for Section 608(c) of the CAA prohibits relationship between this action and certain substitute refrigerants that have the knowing venting, release or disposal other federal rules, see section VI.B.6 of been specifically exempted from this of all refrigerants by any person the proposed rule (81 FR 22866–67; venting prohibition. Because HFO- maintaining, servicing, repairing or April 18, 2016). disposing of an appliance or IPR in a 1234yf has not been exempted from the manner which permits the refrigerant to 2. What is EPA’s final decision? venting prohibition in any end use, such enter the environment, except for As proposed, EPA is listing HFO- knowing releases of HFO-1234yf in the certain substitute refrigerants that have 1234yf as acceptable, subject to use course of maintaining, servicing, been specifically exempted from this conditions, in MVAC systems for newly repairing or disposing of MVAC systems venting prohibition under CAA section manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup of MDVPs, HD pickup trucks, and 608(c)(2). MVAC end-of-life disposal trucks, and complete HD vans. The use complete HD vans addressed in this and recycling specifications are also conditions are detailed in section action is prohibited. covered under section 608 of the CAA VI.B.2.b, ‘‘What are the final use and our regulations issued under that conditions?’’. EPA sought comment and

147 Defined at 40 CFR 86.1801–03. 150 This is more broadly true for HD pickup trucks 152 ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean 148 MVAC systems provide passenger comfort than vans because every manufacturer of HD pickup Transportation: Regulatory Considerations for cooling for LD cars and trucks, HD vehicles (large trucks also makes LD pickup trucks, while only Advancing Commercial Pickup and Van Efficiency pick-ups, delivery trucks, recreational vehicles, and some heavy-duty van manufacturers also make Technology in the United States. Available online at: http://www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups- semi-trucks), off-road vehicles, buses, and rail light-duty vans (80 FR 40148; July 13, 2015). vans-efficiency-technology. vehicles. EPA is not addressing other types of HD 151 EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: 153 ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the U.S. vehicles, off-road vehicles, buses, or trains in this Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Industry, U.S. action. Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Foams Industry, U.S. Aerosols Industry, and U.S. 149 MDPVs are classified as HD vehicles based on Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles— Commercial Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015. their GVWR, but due to their similarities to LD Phase 2. EPA–420–D–15–900. June 2015. Available 154 Service for consideration means receiving vehicles they are subject to the GHG emissions at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/ something of worth or value to perform service, standards established for LD trucks. 420d15900.pdf. whether in money, credit, goods, or services.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86841

a. How does HFO-1234yf compare to used today in HD MVAC systems; HFO-1234yf and a technical support other refrigerants for these MVAC however, given the change of status for document 157 that provides the Federal applications with respect to SNAP HFC-134a for LD vehicles, it is likely Register citations concerning data on criteria? that the manufacturers of these similar the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, vehicle types will also consider VOC, toxicity, flammability) for Available refrigerants for newly transitioning to another alternative acceptable alternatives in the relevant manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup which is listed as acceptable for LD end-uses may be found in the docket for trucks, and complete HD vans include vehicles. All MVAC refrigerants that are this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 155 156 HFC-134a, HFC-152a, and CO2. acceptable for use are listed as 0663). In summary, HFO-1234yf has a There are also several blend refrigerants acceptable subject to use conditions. For GWP of one to four. HFO-1234yf has a that are listed as acceptable for new HD each listed refrigerant, the use GWP similar to or lower than the GWP MVAC systems, subject to use conditions require labeling and the use of other alternatives for the HD vehicle conditions, including the HFC blends of unique fittings and are subject to types addressed in this action. For SP34E and R-426A (also known as RS- additional use conditions mitigating example, its GWP is significantly lower 24) and the HCFC blends, R-416A (also flammability and toxicity as appropriate than that of HFC-134a, the refrigerant known as HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC to the alternative. most widely used in these vehicles FR12), R-406A, R-414A (also known as In section VI.B.3 of the proposed rule today, which has a GWP of 1,430. HFC- 158 159 HCFC Blend Xi or GHG-X4), R-414B (81 FR at 22860–65; April 18, 2016), 152a, and CO2 have GWPs of 124 (also known as HCFC Blend Omicron), EPA provided information on the and one, respectively. The refrigerant HCFC Blend Delta (also known as Free environmental and health properties of blends acceptable for use in MVAC Zone), Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC HFO-1234yf and the available systems for the HD vehicle types Blend Lambda (also known as GHG-HP). alternative in this end-use in this action. addressed in this action have GWPs HFC-134a is the refrigerant most widely In addition, EPA’s risk assessments for ranging from 1 to 1,510.

TABLE 16—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF HFO-1234yf COMPARED TO OTHER REFRIGERANTS IN MVAC SYSTEMS OF NEWLY MANUFACTURED MDPVS, HD PICKUP TRUCKS, AND COMPLETE HD VANS 12

Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC status Listing status

HFO-1234yf ...... 1–4 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable, subject to use conditions. CO2, HFC-152a, HFC-134a ...... 1–1,430 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable. IKON A, R-416A, R-426A, SP34E ...... 30–1,510 0-Not public 3 ...... Yes 4 ...... Acceptable. 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 in- formation. 4 One or more constituents of the blend are VOC.

HFO-1234yf does not deplete the not exempt from the definition in 40 estimated to be double or more the ozone layer. Likewise, HFC-134a, HFC- CFR 51.100(s). values observed in the United States in 152a, CO2 and the HFC blends SP34E A potential environmental impact of 2009 from all sources, natural and and R-426A do not deplete the ozone HFO-1234yf is its atmospheric artificial (i.e., HFC-134a) sources.161 In layer; the HCFC blends have ODPs decomposition to trifluoroacetic acid comparison, the amount of TFA ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. HFO- (TFA, CF3COOH). TFA is a strong acid produced from HFO-1234yf is expected 1234yf, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, and CO2 that may accumulate on soil, on plants, to be higher than that of other are exempt from the definition of VOC and in aquatic ecosystems over time and fluorinated refrigerants in this end-use. that may have the potential to adversely under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR In support of the 2011 listing decision 51.100(s)) addressing the development impact plants, animals, and 160 for HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles, EPA of SIPs to attain and maintain the ecosystems. Simulations have found that the amount of TFA in rainfall analyzed potential TFA concentrations NAAQS. The HFC blends and some of produced from a transition of all mobile from a full transition to HFO-1234yf in the HCFC blends have one or more air conditioners in the continental all MVAC applications, not limited to components that are VOCs and that are 162 163 164 165 166 United States to HFO-1234yf has been LD vehicles. The analysis

155 159 162 HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use CO2 is listed as acceptable, subject to use ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the subpart G; final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 subpart G; final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic FR 33304). 33315). Communities and Local Air Quality. 156 CO is listed as acceptable, subject to use 160 Other fluorinated compounds also decompose 2 163 ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 into TFA, including HFC-134a. Emissions Assumptions. subpart G; final rule published June 6, 2012 (77 FR 161 Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts 33315). in North America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3- 164 ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the 157 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential Vintaging Model that Impacted HFO-1234yf Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental Emissions Estimates. Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Science & Technology 2009. The document is 165 ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Certain Substitutes under the Significant New accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. Robert_Waterland/publication/40481734_Ozone_ Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic 158 HFC-152a is listed as acceptable, subject to use and_TFA_impacts_in_North_America_from_ Communities, Soil and Plants, and Local Air conditions, for new vehicles only at 40 CFR part 82 degradation_of_2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO- subpart G; final rule published June 12, 2008 (73 1234yf)_a_potential_greenhouse_gas_replacement/ Quality. FR 33304). links/00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

found a maximum projected over an 8-hour time-weighted average and 122 ppm on a 30-minute average (as concentration of TFA in rainwater of for long-term occupational exposure to compared with a short-term exposure approximately 1,700 ng/L. This HFO-1234yf. For short-term level of 98,211 ppm divided by a margin maximum projected concentration occupational exposure to HFO-1234yf, of exposure of 30, for a value of 3270 identified in EPA’s analysis, 1700 ng/ we compared worker exposure to an ppm over 30 minutes 175 176).177 178 We L,167 was roughly 34 percent higher acute exposure limit of 98,211 ppm, also analyzed exposure levels during than that projected in a 2009 peer divided by a margin of exposure of 30, manufacture and final disposition at reviewed article.168 The differences in for a value of 3,270 ppm over 30 vehicle end-of-life, and found that they 172 173 projected TFA concentrations in water minutes. Concerning workplace would be no higher than 28 ppm on a exposure, we expect that professional is a reflection of EPA’s reliance on 15-minute average or 8.5 ppm on an 8- 169 technicians have proper training and higher emission estimates. Even hour time-weighted average.179 The certification and have the proper when relying on more conservative manufacture, use, and disposal or emission estimates, a concentration of equipment and knowledge to minimize recycling of HFO-1234yf MVAC systems 1700 ng/L corresponds to roughly 1⁄600th their risks due to exposure to refrigerant are not expected to present a toxicity of the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect- from an MVAC system. Thus, worker Level (NOAEL) for the most sensitive exposure to HFO-1234yf is expected to risk to workers. Other alternatives such algae species, which is also well below be low. If workers service MVAC as HFC-134a and HFC-152a also do not the NOAEL for the most sensitive systems using certified refrigerant present a toxicity risk to workers in the aquatic animal species.170 recovery equipment after receiving same scenarios; therefore, HFO-1234yf Taking into consideration the analysis training and testing, exposure levels to conducted in support of the 2011 listing HFO-1234yf are estimated to be on the 2008–0664–0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account decision, which was based on order of 4 to 8.5 ppm on an 8-hour time- for differences in blood concentrations between weighted average (as compared with a animals and humans, and a margin of exposure or conservative emissions assumptions and collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty 174 a transition from HFC-134a to HFO- 250 ppm workplace exposure limit ) factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human 1234yf for all MVAC systems (not extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the limited to LD vehicles), and the research 2008–0664–0041. We used a factor of 1.9 to account human population. The long-term workplace for differences in blood concentrations between exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm that has been conducted since, EPA animals and humans, and a margin of exposure or (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio of estimated human concludes that the use of HFO-1234yf in collective uncertainty factor of 30. Uncertainty exposure/animal exposure) × 1⁄3 (UF for animal to the HD vehicle types addressed in this factors of 3 were assigned for animal to human human extrapolation) × 1⁄10 (UF for variability action will not pose a significant risk to extrapolation, and 10 for variability within the within the human population) exposure) = 250 human population. The long-term workplace ppm. This value was compared against 8-hour the environment from atmospheric exposure limit was calculated as follows: 4000 ppm average concentrations. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– decomposition to TFA. (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio of estimated human 0664–0036 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0038. × 1 HFO-1234yf is a flammable refrigerant exposure/animal exposure) ⁄3 (UF for animal to 175 This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm × 1 classified as A2L under ASHRAE 34– human extrapolation) ⁄10 (UF for variability from the study, ‘‘Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation within the human population) exposure) = 250 2013. HFC-134a and CO2 are Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in rats,’’ EPA– ppm. This value was compared against 8-hour HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0020 through-0020.4, a factor nonflammable refrigerants, while HFC- average concentrations. See EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– of 1.9 to account for differences in blood 152a is slightly more flammable than 0664–0036 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0038. concentrations between animals and humans and a HFO-1234yf with an ASHRAE 172 This was based on a NOAEL of 51,690 ppm margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor from the study, ‘‘Sub-acute (2-week) Inhalation of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for classification of A2. The blends listed as Toxicity Study with HFO-1234yf in rats,’’ EPA– acceptable are not flammable. animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0020 through-0020.4, a factor variability within the human population. The short- EPA compared worker exposures to a of 1.9 to account for differences in blood term workplace exposure value was calculated as workplace exposure limit of 250 ppm 171 concentrations between animals and humans and a follows: 51,690 ppm (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio margin of exposure or collective uncertainty factor of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) = of 30. Uncertainty factors of 3 were assigned for 166 98,211 ppm. This value was then divided by the ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results animal to human extrapolation, and 10 for expected exposure in each scenario, and compared on projected maximum TFA rainwater variability within the human population. The short- against the target margin of exposure of 30. See concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone term workplace exposure value was calculated as EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0036 and EPA–HQ– concentrations. follows: 51,690 ppm (animal exposure) × 1.9 (ratio 167 OAR–2008–0664–0038. ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results of estimated human exposure/animal exposure) = 176 on projected maximum TFA rainwater 98,211 ppm This value was then divided by the For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone expected exposure in each scenario, and compared limits of 500 ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm concentrations. against the target margin of exposure of 30. See over 30 minutes to evaluate risks for these same 168 Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0664–0036 and EPA–HQ– time periods. These are based on the 8-hr in North America from degradation of 2, 3, 3, 3- OAR–2008–0664–0038. Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), a potential 173 For comparison, the SAE CRP used exposure for HFO-1234yf and for short-term exposure, greenhouse gas replacement. Environmental limits of 500 ppm over 8 hours and 115,000 ppm assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm Science & Technology 2009. The document is over 30 minutes to evaluate risks for these same from the study, ‘‘Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity accessible at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/ time periods. These are based on the 8-hr study with HFO-1234yf in rats.’’ Note that EPA _ _ _ Robert Waterland/publication/40481734 Ozone Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) disagrees with the finding that the acute inhalation ______and TFA impacts in North America from for HFO-1234yf and for short-term exposure, toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this _ _ _ degradation of 2333-Tetrafluoropropene (HFO- assuming a NOAEL of approximately 405,800 ppm study to show adverse effects at all levels because _ _ _ _ _ 1234yf) a potential greenhouse gas replacement/ from the study, ‘‘Acute (4-hour) inhalation toxicity of the presence of grey discoloration in the lungs links/00b7d514ca9595bf5e000000.pdf. study with HFO-1234yf in rats.’’ Note that EPA of the test animals. In order to ensure sufficient 169 ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results disagrees with the finding that the acute inhalation protection, EPA’s risk assessment used a NOAEL on projected maximum TFA rainwater toxicity study found a NOAEL. We consider this from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone study to show adverse effects at all levels because acute study. concentrations. of the presence of grey discoloration in the lungs 177 EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07–0601. 170 ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment of of the test animals. In order to ensure sufficient Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/# the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the protection, EPA’s risk assessment used a NOAEL !documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0036. Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic from a subacute study instead of a LOAEL from an 178 ICF International, 2009b. Risk Screen on Communities and Local Air Quality. acute study. Substitutes for CFC–12 in Motor Vehicle Air 171 This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from 174 This was based on a NOAEL of 4000 ppm from Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. Available the study, ‘‘An Inhalation Prenatal Developmental the study, ‘‘An Inhalation Prenatal Developmental online at: http://www.regulations.gov/# Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3- Toxicity Study of HFO-1234yf (2,3,3,3- !documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664-0038. Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– Tetrafluoropropene) in Rabbits,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 179 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86843

poses the same or less risk than other in the MVAC systems used for these not reach an unsafe level that might alternatives. vehicles, these use conditions will cause an uncontrolled leak of As explained in section VI.B.3 of the ensure use of HFO-1234yf in MDPVs, refrigerant, such as if the AC system is proposed rule (81 FR at 22860–65; April HD pickup trucks, and complete HD overcharged. The pressure release 18, 2016), to evaluate environmental, vans does not pose significantly greater device will reduce the likelihood that flammability, and toxicity risks risk than use of other alternatives. refrigerant leaks would reach hot resulting from the use of HFO-1234yf in The first use condition requires that surfaces that might lead to either new MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and MVAC systems designed to use HFO- ignition or formation of HF. Designing complete HD vans, the Agency relied on 1234yf must meet the requirements of the refrigerant circuit and connections EPA’s analysis conducted in support of SAE J639, ‘‘Safety Standards for Motor to avoid refrigerant entering the the 2011 listing decision for HFO- Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Compression passenger cabin ensures that if there is 1234yf for LD vehicles. EPA was able to Systems.’’ This standard sets safety a leak, the refrigerant is unlikely to enter rely on the 2011 analysis of HFO-1234yf standards that include unique fittings; a in LD vehicles in support of this rule warning label indicating the the passenger cabin. Keeping refrigerant because the MVAC systems, vehicle refrigerant’s identity and that it is a out of the passenger cabin minimizes designs, and the potential for exposure flammable refrigerant; and requirements the possibility that there would be for the HD vehicle types for which EPA for engineering design strategies that sufficient levels of refrigerant to reach is listing HFO-1234yf as acceptable, include a high-pressure compressor flammable concentrations or that HF subject to use conditions, in this action cutoff switch and pressure relief would be formed and transported where are identical or very similar to those of devices. This use condition also passengers might be exposed. LD vehicles. In addition, we considered requires that for connections with The second use condition requires the risk assessments performed by OEMs refrigerant containers for use in manufacturer of MVAC systems and and independent consultants on the use professional servicing, use fittings must vehicles to conduct Failure Mode and of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles through be consistent with SAE J2844 (revised Effects Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE Cooperative Research Programs January 2013), which specifies quick- SAE J1739 (adopted 2009) and keep (CRPs) and found these were consistent connect fittings that are different from records of the FMEA on file for three with our analysis. Based on that those for any other refrigerant. The low- years from the date of creation. SAE analysis, at proposal, EPA concluded side service port and connections will J1739 (adopted 2009) describes a FMEA HFO-1234yf did not pose a significantly have an outside diameter of 14 mm as ‘‘a systematic group of activities greater due to environmental effects, (0.551 inches) and the high-side service intended to: (a) Recognize and evaluate flammability or toxicity than the other port will have an outside diameter of 17 the potential failure of a product/ alternatives when used in accordance mm (0.669 inches), both accurate to with use conditions established as part within 2 mm. Under SAE J2844 (revised process and the effects and causes of of the listing decision. The refrigerants January 2013), containers of HFO- that failure, (b) identify actions that to which HFO-1234yf was compared in 1234yf for use in professional servicing could eliminate or reduce the change of the 2011 action for LD vehicles are the of MVAC systems must have a left- the potential failure occurring, and (c) same refrigerants available for use in the handed screw valve with a diameter of document the process.’’ Through the vehicle types included in this action. 0.5 inches and Acme (trapezoidal) FMEA, OEMs determine the appropriate Based on the consideration of all of thread with 16 threads per inch. The protective strategies necessary to ensure SNAP criteria, EPA has determined that SAE standards did not include and EPA the safe use of HFO-1234yf across their HFO-1234yf does not pose significantly did not receive a submission for unique vehicle fleet. It is standard industry greater risk than the other alternatives, fittings for small containers of HFO- practice to perform the FMEA and to when used in accordance with use 1234yf refrigerant prior to the keep it on file while the vehicle is in conditions, for use in newly publication of the proposed rule. production and for several years manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup Based on EPA’s analysis of the safety afterwards. As with the previous use trucks, and complete HD vans. Further study and consistent with the condition, this use condition is information on these analyses and conclusion EPA drew at the time of intended to ensure that new MDPVs, HD EPA’s risk assessments are available in EPA’s listing decision for HFO-1234yf pickup trucks, and complete HD vans the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– in LD vehicles relied, EPA believes that manufactured with HFO-1234yf MVAC HQ–OAR–2015–0663). the safety requirements that are systems are specifically designed to included in SAE J639 sufficiently b. What are the final use conditions? minimize release of the refrigerant into mitigate risks of both HF generation and the passenger cabin or onto hot surfaces All MVAC refrigerants listed as refrigerant ignition (e.g., flammability that might result in ignition or in acceptable are subject to use conditions and toxicity) (March 29, 2011; 76 FR generation of HF. requiring labeling and the use of unique 17488) for MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, fittings. EPA is listing HFO-1234yf as and complete HD vans subject to this c. When will the listing apply? acceptable, subject to use conditions, action. HFO-1234yf is mildly flammable because the use conditions are (class 2L) and, like other fluorinated EPA is establishing a listing date as of necessary to ensure that use of HFO- refrigerants, can decompose to form the January 3, 2017. Based on information 1234yf will not have a significantly toxic compound HF when exposed to the Agency possessed at the time of the greater overall impact on human health flame or to sufficient heat. For example, proposal and additional information and the environment than other SAE J639 provides for a pressure relief submitted during the comment period alternatives for use in MDPVs, HD device designed to minimize direct regarding the technical feasibility of pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. impingement of the refrigerant and oil transitioning the fleet of HD vehicles EPA is requiring the same use on hot surfaces and for design of the and refrigerant supply, we conclude that conditions for HFO-1234yf in these HD refrigerant circuit and connections to this date, the same as the effective date vehicle types as are required for the use avoid refrigerant entering the passenger of this regulation, allows for the safe use of HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured cabin. The pressure release device of this substitute at the earliest LD vehicles. Because of the similarities ensures that pressure in the system will opportunity.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86844 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

3. How is EPA responding to comments? acceptable, subject to use conditions, as EIA also recommended that EPA proposed. conduct similar studies on TFA EPA received comments from Comment: EIA and NRDC commented concentrations in bodies of water (e.g., organizations with various interests in that EPA should list HFO-12134yf in all vernal pools) in the United States, given the MVAC industry on the proposed types of on-road and off-road vehicles, that they are critical to the life cycle of listing of HFO-1234yf as acceptable, rather than only in MDPVs, HD pickup amphibians, reptiles, insects, and other subject to use conditions, in newly trucks, and complete HD vans. To aquatic animals, and to contact the manufactured MDPVs, HD pickup support their argument, the commenters authors of the Peking University study. trucks, and complete HD vans. All stated that these additional vehicle Response: EPA appreciates the commenters supported the proposed types are not materially different. additional information provided by EIA listing decision and effective date of 30 Response: EPA appreciates EIA’s on the atmospheric decomposition of days after date of publication of the rule suggestions regarding the listing of HFO-1234yf to TFA. EPA’s analysis was in the Federal Register. However, EIA HFO-1234yf for use in HD vehicle types based on conservative emissions raised concerns about continued growth not covered in this rule and will take assumptions and a transition from HFC- of the use of HFO-1234yf as an MVAC them into consideration as the Agency 134a to HFO-1234yf for all MVAC refrigerant based on environmental considers any additional listing changes systems. As mentioned previously, even impacts. Some commenters indicated under the SNAP program. when relying on these conservative that the industry is already in the b. SNAP Review Criteria emission estimates, a concentration of process of transitioning to HFO-1234yf 1700 ng/L corresponds to roughly 1/ in response to EPA’s Light-Duty Comment: AAM and Chemours 600th of the NOAEL for the most Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) Rule and supported EPA’s use of the 2011 sensitive algae species, which is also policy incentives. One commenter also analysis of HFO-1234yf in LD vehicles well below the NOAEL for the most indicated that production capacity of to support the listing of HFO-1234yf in sensitive aquatic animal species. HFO-1234yf is sufficient to meet the the HD vehicles in this action. AMM Research on TFA has been conducted increased demand under this rule. Other commented that it is ‘‘appropriate for since the 2011 final rule listing HFO- comments were in reference to the EPA to have applied the HFO-1234yf 1234yf as acceptable for LD vehicles and environmental impacts of the proposed risk analysis performed for light duty the information shows no greater risk listing of HFO-1234yf, the relationship vehicles to these additional categories of than our earlier analysis. As EPA of the proposed rule with other federal vehicles, which do not pose indicated in their comments, the 2015 rules, and status changes for R-134a in significantly higher risks.’’ Additionally, study by Zhai et al. reported a 17-fold end uses beyond LD vehicles. Chemours commented that EPA’s use of increase in TFA concentration in The Alliance of Automobile the 2011 analysis was reasonable landscape waters in Beijing, China, over Manufacturers (AAM), a trade because the systems evaluated are very the period 2002–2012. The authors association, submitted comments on similar to light duty systems. associated the increase of TFA Response: EPA appreciates the behalf of twelve car and light truck concentrations with the increased HFC- support. 134a emissions in China (factor of 5.5 manufacturers including BMW Group Comment: EIA commented on the from 2005 to 2015) although no model (BMW), FCA, Ford Motor Company, environmental impacts of the evaluation was conducted. In an earlier General Motors Company, Jaguar Land atmospheric decomposition of HFO- combined observation and modeling Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, 1234yf to TFA. EIA commented that the Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche Cars, studies EPA relied upon to support the study in China, only 14 percent of Toyota, Volkswagen Group and Volvo proposed listing of HFO-1234yf annual total TFA deposition flux was Cars. EPA also received comments from attributable to HFC-134a, with the ‘‘projected maximum rainwater 181 two chemical producers, Chemours and concentrations of TFA from certain balance from unknown sources. This Honeywell; three environmental emission assumptions, but did not ‘‘take value is an upper limit because it was organizations, NRDC, IGSD, and EIA; into account the much higher potential obtained using the upper limit of the 182 and a state agency, CARB. for high levels of accumulation of TFA TFA yield from HFC-134a. Despite We have grouped comments together in urban surface and landscape waters, the observed 17-fold increase, the TFA and responded to the issues raised by particularly those bodies where inflows concentrations measured by Zhai et al. ¥1 the comments in the sections that of water accumulate but have little or no in surface waters (up to 0.828 mg L ) ¥1 follow, or in a separate Response to outlet other than evaporation.’’ EIA and in tap water (0.155 mg L ) in 2012 Comments document which is included cited a 2015 Peking University 180 study are comparable to TFA concentrations in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– showing increases in TFA measured in other countries (e.g., 0.012– ¥1 OAR–2015–0663). concentrations between 2002 and 2012 0.328 mg L in rivers, 0.037–0.36 mg L¥1 in lakes, and 0.016–0.123 mg L¥1 in a. Substitute and End-Uses Proposed in urban landscape waters, other water bodies, and snow samples in the region drinking water in Switzerland in 1996– 183 Comment: AAM, Chemours, in and around Beijing. EIA stated that 1997. The study by Zhai et al. shows Honeywell, NRDC, IGSD, EIA, and ‘‘more research is needed to understand 181 Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, CARB supported the listing of HFO- whether continued growth in H. Jin, J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic 1234yf as acceptable, subject to use automobile and HFC consumption and acid and its fraction from the degradation of HFC- conditions, in MDPVs, HD pickup the transition of this sector and others 134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. Technol., trucks, and complete HD vans. AAM to HFO-1234yf would lead to 10.1021/es4050264, 2014. commented that their member concentrations of TFA that could pose 182 Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. Tyndall, O. J. Nielsen: Comment on ‘‘Airborne companies have been adopting HFO- a significant risk to aquatic ecosystems.’’ Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its Fraction from the 1234yf for passenger cars and light duty Degradation of HFC-134a in Beijing, China’’, trucks and would like to make use of 180 Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 9948–9948, DOI: HFO-1234yf for other vehicle types. J. Hu, and J. Zhang: A 17-fold increase of 10.1021/es502485w, 2014. trifluoroacetic acid in landscape waters of Beijing, 183 Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. Response: EPA appreciates the China during the last decade, Chemosphere, 129, Wiedmer, and R.P. Schwarzenbach: Concentrations support for finding HFO-1234yf as 110–117, 2015. and mass fluxes of chloroacetic acids and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86845

that the emissive use of HFC-134a and to encourage transition to low-GWP commented that similar to the listing of emissions of unknown anthropogenic solutions in medium and heavy-duty HFC-134a as unacceptable for newly TFA precursors 184 have increased TFA vehicles. Chemours indicated that manufactured light-duty vehicles concentrations in surface bodies of automakers in the United States, beginning in Model Year 2021, EPA water. Since HFO-1234yf has a shorter Canada, Mexico, EU, Japan, and South should establish a similar status change atmospheric lifetime (several days) and Korea are deploying HFO-1234yf in a date for HFC-134a in MDPVs, HD higher TFA yield (100%) than HFC- range of models, largely in response to pickup trucks, and complete HD vans to 134a, its substitution for HFC-134a is policy incentives including the US secure additional climate benefit at expected to further increase TFA light-duty vehicle tailpipe GHG negligible additional risk. Honeywell concentrations in precipitation and in standards and the EU Mobile Air commented that if EPA were to change bodies of water near large sources. Conditioning Directive. To support their the status of HFC-134a to unacceptable Additionally, a 2014 study by Kazil, argument, AAM provided comments for these HD vehicle types, avoided et al. analyzed TFA deposition in the submitted by the American Automotive emissions could be approximately one United States assuming 100 percent of Council’s (AAC) on EPA’s Heavy-Duty million MtCO2eq annually. CARB and all MVAC systems use HFO-1234yf. The Greenhouse Gas (HD GHG) Phase 2 Honeywell suggested that EPA should results indicated that rainwater TFA proposed rule and encouraged the change the status of HFC-134a for these concentrations, while varying strongly Agency to adopt a credit allowance applications and also suggested a geographically, will on average be low mechanism to ‘‘incentivize the quicker change of status date of MY 2021. In compared to the levels at which toxic adoption of HFO-1234yf and leakage support, these commenters claimed it is effects are observed in aquatic systems. improvements for HD pickup trucks and feasible for the industry can transition The UNEP Ozone Secretariat also complete HD vans.’’ AAM stated that to low-GWP alternatives by MY 2021 provided a summary of key information ‘‘the opportunities for fuel savings and based on the following: Stakeholder pertaining to TFA based on the 2014 GHG emission reductions on these input suggest OEMs need two to three Assessment Reports of the medium and heavy duty vehicles are years to evaluate safe and effective Environmental Effects Assessment Panel even greater, per vehicle, than on light implementation of low-GWP (EEAP) and the Scientific Assessment duty vehicles given the larger refrigerant alternatives and another two to three Panel (SAP) of the Montreal Protocol. charge sizes, higher fuel consumption years to adopt necessary changes; The brief states, ‘‘While it is well engines, longer vehicle lifetimes and substitutes exist for mobile air established that TFA is a ubiquitous greater lifetime VMT in these heavier conditioning systems, including HFO- natural component in rivers, lakes, and vehicle categories.’’ 1234yf; international policy is driving other surface water bodies, uncertainties Response: This comment is outside global auto manufacturers to transition remain regarding anthropogenic the scope of this rulemaking. We note to alternatives other than HFC-134a by sources, long-term fate and abundances that as part of the Model Year (MY) the end of 2016 and U.S. car as these are linked to current and future 2017–2025 LD GHG rule,185 EPA manufacturing can apply the lessons use and emissions of HFCs, HCFCs, and established the availability of credits for learned from global manufactures to HFOs. Based on estimates to 2040, the use of alternative refrigerants with transition U.S. vehicles to non-HFC- increases are predicted to remain lower GWPs than that of HFC-134a. In 134a alternatives; several U.S. car relatively low and are therefore not this action, EPA is listing HFO-1234yf manufactures are already selling vehicle expected to be a significant risk to as acceptable, subject to use conditions, models that use HFO-1234yf systems; human health or detrimental to the for MDPVs which are included in the and commercial scale HFO-1234yf environment. Projected future increased MY 2017–2025 LD GHG rule; therefore, production plants are operating and loadings of TFA to playas, land-locked vehicle manufacturers will be able to supply will continue to increase. lakes, and the oceans due to continued obtain credits for the use of HFO-1234yf Response: EPA did not propose to use of HCFCs, HFCs, and replacement in these vehicles as allowed for in the change the status of HFC-134a in MVAC products such as HFOs are still judged MY 2017–2025 LD GHG rule. The LD systems for newly manufactured HD to present negligible risks for aquatic GHG standards do not require any vehicles; therefore, the Agency is not organisms and humans.’’ The UNEP specific means of compliance, so establishing a change of status date as background document also states that manufacturers have the flexibility to part of the final rule. EPA appreciates TFA and its salts ‘‘do not bioconcentrate either switch refrigerants or to comply the comments submitted and will take 186 in aquatic organisms, and do not with the standards by other means. them into consideration when the Agency considers any additional biomagnify in the food chain. Thus they d. Status Change for Other Refrigerants present negligible risk to organisms changes of status under the SNAP Comment: CARB, Honeywell, NRDC, higher on the food chain, including program. and IGSD suggested that EPA change the humans.’’ See the docket for this Comment: NRDC and IGSD status of HFC-134a and other high-GWP rulemaking for additional information commented that EPA should take steps alternatives to unacceptable in MVAC on TFA projections in the environment. to ensure thatnew vehicles designed for systems for newly manufactured HFO-1234yf are not serviced or c. Relationship With Other Rules MDPVs, HD pickup trucks, and HD recharged with HFC-134a. The Comment: AAM and Chemours vans. These commenters indicated that commenters stated that HFC-134a will commented that EPA should use HFC-134a is unacceptable for LD remain approved to service existing incentives similar to the LD GHG Rule vehicles and changing the status of motor vehicles and, therefore, it is HFC-134a for HD vehicles could result possible to modify new vehicles to trifluoroacetic acid in rain and natural waters in in significant reductions in carbon recharge with HFC-134a. NRDC and Switzerland. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 2675–2683, equivalent emissions. NRDC and IGSD IGSD recommended that EPA enact 2000. ‘‘stronger, more comprehensive and 184 Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. Fang, 185 77 FR 62624, 62807–810 (October 15, 2012); enforceable rules to discourage and H. Jin, J. Hu, and J. Zhang. Airborne trifluoroacetic see also 75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010) acid and its fraction from the degradation of HFC- (discussing the same issue for MY 2012–2016 light- prohibit’’ the modification of new HFO- 134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. Technol., duty vehicles). 1234yf systems with HFC-134.’’ 10.1021/es4050264, 2014. 186 77 FR 62804–809 Specifically, the commenters

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86846 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

recommended that the Agency ‘‘classify use conditions, for use in all MVAC canister (A- and B-side) system under refrigerant-containing components as applications for new equipment, lower pressures and they provide part of the emission control system, including newly manufactured MDPVs, structure as well as buoyancy. The end- which would make it illegal to HD pickup trucks, and complete HD use affected here, rigid PU spray foam, substitute refrigerants or unqualified vans. hereafter called ‘‘spray foam,’’ includes replacement parts.’’ They also suggested Comment: CARB commented that insulation for roofing, walls, doors, and that EPA require OEMs to apply tamper- they are aware of Chemours’ SNAP other construction uses, as well as foam proof seals to refrigerant charge ports, application for the use of HFO-1234yf in for building breakers for pipelines. similar to the plastic seals used on various heavy-duty vehicle These foams are rigid with closed cells pharmaceutical products, to identify classifications and encouraged EPA to that still contain the foam blowing tampering and alert service technicians, expedite the review and determination agent, which can contribute to the owners, or potential buyers to the process upon receiving the application. foam’s ability to insulate. Spray foam possibility that a refrigerant other than Response: EPA appreciates the may have similar chemistry to other HFO-1234yf is in the system. commenter’s suggestion. EPA is rigid PU end-uses, but it differs by being Response: The SNAP listings for all reviewing the submission from sprayed onto a surface in the location MVAC refrigerants require the use of Chemours regarding the use of HFO- where it is to be used, either when unique fittings for each alternative 1234yf in other heavy duty vehicle constructing a new building or when refrigerant. These fittings are found at classes. adding insulation to an existing attachment points on the car itself, on C. Foam Blowing Agents building, rather than being injected or all recovery and recycling equipment, poured or being produced in a on can taps and other charging 1. Change of Listing Status for Certain manufacturing facility. As a result, it equipment, and on all refrigerant HFC Foam Blowing Agents for Rigid PU may be more difficult to provide containers. The purpose of these fittings Spray Foam engineered ventilation during is to prevent cross-contamination. Using a. Background application of spray foam than for other an adapter or deliberately modifying a foam end-uses. In addition to federal fitting to use a different refrigerant is a In the NPRM published on August 6, rules and guidance applying to the violation of these use conditions. The 2014, EPA proposed to change the application of spray foam, insulation commenter did not identify other listings from acceptable to unacceptable foam used in construction (e.g., high- methods to discourage and prohibit use for HFC-134a and blends thereof, and pressure two-component spray foam) of HFC-134a in systems designed from the HFC blend Formacel TI for spray must meet insulation value HFO-1234yf or how EPA could foam as of January 1, 2017 (79 FR requirements in state and local building otherwise strengthen the current 46149). After considering the comments codes. conditions that discourage cross- received on the proposed rule, EPA We have identified three distinct and contamination of refrigerants in MVAC. deferred taking final action on spray separate spray foam applications for this See section VI.B.6.e of the July 2015 foam in the final rule. See sections end-use: (1) High-pressure two- final rule for a response to several V.D.2.a and V.D.3.b of the preamble to component, (2) low-pressure two- comments on servicing CFC–12, HFC- the final rule (80 FR 42870; July 20, component, and (3) one-component 134a, and the lower-GWP alternative 2015). foam sealants. refrigerant MVAC systems. EPA will In the past, EPA combined spray High-pressure two-component spray consider updating the information on foam, commercial refrigeration foam, foam products are pressurized 800–1600 our Web site, as appropriate. sandwich panels, and marine flotation psi during manufacture, are sold in foam within a single end-use: Rigid PU pressurized containers as two parts (i.e., e. Other Suggestions or Requests commercial refrigeration, spray, and A-side and B-side), and are sprayed in Comment: Honeywell recommended sandwich panels. However, because of the field for thermal insulation and air that EPA consider listing high-GWP differences in the exposure and fire sealing of buildings and in roofing substances as unacceptable for use in safety characteristics of these uses as applications. High-pressure two- refrigerated transport, as early as well as the fact that different component spray foam is blown and January 1, 2019, in a future rulemaking. alternatives are generally used for each applied in situ using high-pressure Honeywell stated that two leading of these applications, EPA more recently pumps to propel the foam components, manufacturers of mobile refrigeration created separate end-use listings for and thus, may use liquid blowing agents systems have introduced systems that each of these applications. See 80 FR without an additional propellant. utilize refrigerants with GWPs below 42870; July 20, 2015. Commercial Common liquid foam blowing agents 2,200 and have been selling these refrigeration and sandwich panels used in high-pressure two-component systems for more than a year. They also include insulation for walls, pipes spray foam include HFC-245fa; blends commented that there are commercially (including ‘‘pipe-in-pipe’’), metal doors, of HFC-365mfc with at least four available refrigerant options with a GWP vending machines, refrigerated and percent HFC-245fa; and commercial of less than 1,500, including R-448A, R- unrefrigerated coolers, refrigerated blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 449A, R-134a, R-450A, R-513A and CO2. transport vehicles, and other laboratory percent HFC-227ea and the remainder Response: EPA appreciates receiving and commercial refrigeration HFC-365mfc. This type of spray foam is this information and will consider the equipment, as well as foam for applied by professionals who wear comments as it evaluates possible future taxidermy. These foams may be injected personal protective equipment (PPE) actions. or applied using ‘‘pour-in-place’’ while applying high-density foam Comment: EIA commented that CO2 is equipment, depending on the agent insulation for roofing or walls. High- listed as an acceptable substitute in HD used and on whether the formulation is pressure two-component spray foam vehicles and should also be listed as pressurized. Marine flotation foam comprises the largest portion of the acceptable in the end-uses covered in includes buoyancy or flotation foam spray foam market. this action as well. used in construction of boats and ships. Low-pressure two-component spray Response: EPA notes that CO2 is These foams typically are injected into foam products are pressurized to less currently listed as acceptable, subject to a cavity in the boat wall from a two- than 250 psi during manufacture, are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86847

sold in pressurized containers as two contractors to fill in cracks and gaps in b. What is EPA’s final decision? parts (i.e., A-side & B-side), and are also a residence using kits that are available EPA proposed to change the status of 187 sprayed in the field for thermal for sale. the following HFCs and HFC blends that insulation and air sealing of buildings. One-component foam sealants are have previously been listed as Low-pressure two-component spray packaged in aerosol cans and are acceptable foam blowing agents for use foams are typically applied in situ applied in situ using a gaseous foam in spray foam: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, relying upon a gaseous foam blowing blowing agent that is also the propellant and blends thereof; blends of HFC- agent that also serves as a propellant; for the aerosol formulation. This end- 365mfc with at least four percent HFC- pumps typically are not needed. This use category primarily uses light 245fa; commercial blends of HFC- type of spray foam has primarily used saturated HCs as the blowing agent, as 365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC- the gaseous blowing agent HFC-134a; well as HFCs such as HFC-134a and 227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; the Foams Technical Options HFC-152a. This type of spray foam may and Formacel TI.188 In this action, we Committee has also identified CO2 and be used by consumers and by home are finalizing the status changes that we water as options. Low-pressure two- improvement contractors in order to proposed with no changes. The change component spray foam is usually seal cracks and leaks in a residence, as of status determinations for rigid PU applied by home improvement well as used for pest management. spray foam are summarized in Table 17.

TABLE 17—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN RIGID PU SPRAY FOAM

End-use Substitutes Listing status

Rigid PU: Spray foam—high- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or pressure two-component. HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, space- and aeronautics-related applications * as of and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to January 1, 2020. 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC- Unacceptable for all applications other than military or 365mfc; and Formacel TI. space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2025. Rigid PU: Spray foam—low- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or pressure two-component. HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, space- and aeronautics-related applications * as of and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to January 1, 2021. 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC- Unacceptable for all applications other than military or 365mfc; and Formacel TI. space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2021. Unacceptable for all uses as of January 1, 2025. Rigid PU: Spray foam—one HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020. component foam sealants. 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. * Under the narrowed use limit, an end user must make reasonable efforts to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

i. How do these unacceptable blowing VOC, toxicity, flammability) for 1,030 for blends of HFC-365mfc with at agents compare to other blowing agents acceptable alternatives, as well as those least four percent HFC-245fa, 900 to for these end-uses with respect to SNAP we are finding unacceptable in the 1,100 for commercial blends of HFC- criteria? relevant end-uses, may be found in the 365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC- 227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, Over the past ten years, the number of docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0663). In summary, the risks and 1,330 to approximately 1,500 for available alternative blowing agents for Formacel TI. spray foam has increased. A number of other than GWP for the acceptable alternatives are not significantly Acceptable alternatives for all three new foam blowing agents with low spray foam applications include CO , different from the risks for the 2 GWPs, both fluorinated and non- water, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomate, alternatives than for the blowing agents fluorinated, have been introduced HFC-152a, HFO-1234ze(E), and trans-1- during the past several years. we are proposing to list as unacceptable, chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene. As In the proposed rule, EPA provided and the GWPs for the blowing agents we shown in Table 18, these alternatives information on the environmental and are proposing to list as unacceptable are have GWPs ranging from zero to 124. In health risks presented by the significantly higher and thus pose addition, for one-component foam alternatives that are being found significantly greater risk. The HFCs that sealants only, light saturated HCs are unacceptable compared with other we are listing as unacceptable for rigid acceptable, with GWPs in the range of available alternatives that are listed as PU spray foam have GWPs ranging from three to 15. For high-pressure two- acceptable (81 FR 22869–71; April 18, 1,030 for HFC-245fa to 1,430 for HFC- component spray foam only, HFO- 2016). In addition, a technical support 134a. The HFC blends that we are listing 1336mzz(Z) is acceptable, with a GWP document 189 that provides the Federal as unacceptable have GWPs that vary of approximately nine. These GWPs are Register citations concerning data on depending on the specific composition; significantly lower than the GWPs of the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, GWP, the range of GWPs for blends is 740 to 740 to 1,500 for the HFC and HFC blend

187 Low-pressure two-component spray foam kits training and at http://spraypolyurethane.org/Main- 189 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- should only be used by trained professionals. The Menu-Category/Weatherization-Contractors/ Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of polyurethanes industry has guidance on how to use Installing-SPF. Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for low pressure kits available at: http://spray 188 We note that neat HFC-365mfc has never been Certain Substitutes under the Significant New polyurethane.org/spf-chemical-health-and-safety- listed as acceptable for use in spray foam. Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86848 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

substitutes subject to the proposed change of status.

TABLE 18—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN RIGID POLYURETHANE HIGH-PRESSURE TWO- COMPONENT SPRAY FOAM, LOW-PRESSURE TWO-COMPONENT SPRAY FOAM, AND RIGID PU ONE-COMPONENT FOAM SEALANTS 12

Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Listing status

Rigid PU High-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC- 740–1,500 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable, subject to nar- 365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial rowed use limits 2 or unac- blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea ceptable. and the remainder HFC-365 mfc; and Formacel® TI. CO2; Ecomate; Formic Acid; HFC-152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1- 0–124 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM 1233ze(E)) 1; Water. Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z) ...... >1–9 0 ...... Yes ...... Acceptable.

Rigid PU Low-Pressure Two-Component Spray Foam

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC- 740–1,500 0 ...... No ...... Acceptable, subject to nar- 365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial rowed use limits 2 or unac- blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea ceptable. and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel® TI. CO2; Ecomate; HFC-152a; HFO-1234ze; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 0–124 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water. Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z) ...... >1–9 0 ...... Yes ...... Acceptable.

Rigid PU One-Component Foam Sealants

HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC- 740–1,500 0 ...... No ...... Unacceptable. 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. CO2; Ecomate; HFC-–152a; HFO-1234ze; ; 0–124 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water. Formic Acid; HFO-1336mzz(Z); Saturated Light HCs C3–C6 ...... >1–9 0 ...... Yes ...... Acceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents. 2 For military or space- and aeronautics-related applications.

All of the HFCs and HFC blends we addressing the development of SIPs to quality than other available alternatives are listing as unacceptable consist of attain and maintain the NAAQS. The in these applications. The manufacturer compounds that are non-ozone- other alternatives, with the exception of of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has petitioned EPA depleting. Only one of the alternatives light saturated HCs (for one-component to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the in these three spray foam applications— foam sealants only),192 and HFO- definition of VOC under those trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- 1336mzz(Z) (for high-pressure two- regulations. As provided in our ene—contains chlorine and has an ODP, component spray foam only), contain decisions listing these substitutes as which is 0.00024 to 0.00034. Estimates compounds that are not VOC (i.e., acceptable, we determined that of its maximum potential impact on the water) or are excluded from the emissions of these alternatives in this ozone layer indicate a statistically definition of VOC under CAA end-use would not pose a significantly insignificant impact, comparable to that regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) greater risk than that posed by other of other substitutes in the same end-use addressing the development of SIPs to available alternatives. that are considered to be non-ozone- attain and maintain the NAAQS (e.g., All of the HFCs and HFC blends with 190 191 depleting. CO2, component of ecomate, HFO- specific compositions that we are listing All of the HFCs and HFC blends we 1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,- as unacceptable are nonflammable. are listing as unacceptable consist of trifluoroprop-1-ene). Based on the small There has been use of blends of HFC- compounds that are excluded from the anticipated usage of HCs, and due to 134a and HFC-152a, composition definition of VOC under CAA existing state regulations under SIPs unspecified, in the past; those blends regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) affecting aerosol products that may may be flammable depending on the include HCs as the blowing agent in exact composition. Such blends are 190 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. one-component foam sealants, we do unacceptable under this final rule as ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential not expect this alternative to have a Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of blends of HFC-134a. Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, significantly greater impact on local air Of the other alternatives, ecomate is Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. the only one that is flammable. The 191 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric 192 EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing manufacturers of ecomateTM have Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- agent brand Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for 1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- all rigid PU spray foam applications. However, the developed training to teach users of dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ manufacturer of that blowing agent has withdrawn high-pressure two-component spray Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. this agent from the market. foam about the flammability hazards of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86849

these flammable foam blowing agents in radiological warfare systems. In the case required for reformulation (about one this end-use and how to minimize of space- and aeronautics-related year), and the time required for testing flammability risks.193 194 As we applications, the challenging and certification of the final commercial determined at the time that we listed operational environment and the product (one to one and a half years). ecomate as acceptable, it can be used in lengthy requalification process Part of the process of testing and these spray foam applications in a associated with human-rated space certification for high-pressure two- manner that ensures it would not pose flight systems require a longer transition component and low-pressure two- significantly greater risk than other time than would otherwise apply. component spray foam used for building available substitutes. Users of a restricted agent within the insulation includes verifying sufficient Toxicity must be considered and narrowed use limits category must make insulation value to meet building code addressed with all of the alternatives in a reasonable effort to ascertain that other requirements. Some studies have this end-use, with the possible substitutes or alternatives are not indicated that CO2 may provide less exception of water. Both the HFC technically feasible. Users are expected insulation value to an insulation foam, substitutes we are listing as to undertake a thorough technical pound for pound, than HFCs. Recent unacceptable and the other alternatives investigation of alternatives to the information on some of the newer have workplace exposure limits, either otherwise restricted substitute. fluorinated foam blowing agents with as regulatory requirements (i.e., OSHA Although users are not required to low GWPs, such as HFO-1234ze(E), PEL) or as a recommendation (e.g., report the results of their investigations HFO-1336mzz(Z), and trans-1-chloro- AIHA WEEL, ACGIH TLV or to EPA, users must document these 3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, indicates manufacturer recommended workplace results, and retain them in their files for these foam blowing agents provide exposure limits). Proper training, use of the purpose of demonstrating comparable or greater insulation value PPE, and use of ventilation should be compliance. than their HCFC and HFC predecessors. adhered to when applying spray foam. Users should include the following Thus, requirements to meeting building As we determined at the time that we documentation to demonstrate code requirements for insulation value listed each of these substitutes as compliance with the narrowed use will not impede a transition to acceptable, they can be used in these applications. This information includes alternatives. spray foam applications consistent with descriptions of: To allow sufficient time for • the relevant workplace exposure limits. Process or product in which the manufacturers of low-pressure two- For further information, see docket substitute is needed; component spray foam kits to complete • EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663. Substitutes examined and rejected; working through the technical • Reason for rejection of other challenges of alternatives, as well as ii. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or alternatives, e.g., performance, technical time for existing kits to be distributed, Space- and Aeronautics-Related or safety standards; and/or purchased, and used by the end user, Applications • Anticipated date other substitutes we are establishing a change of status EPA is establishing a time-limited will be available and projected time for date of January 1, 2021. A change of exception to the unacceptability switching. status date of January 1, 2021, is determination for military or space- and iii. When will the status change? necessary for low-pressure two- aeronautics-related applications when component to address the technical Except for the narrow use limits used in low pressure two-component issues associated with using a different addressed above, EPA is changing the and high pressure two-component spray foam blowing agent. Based on listings from acceptable to unacceptable foam. Specifically, EPA is finalizing a information from several companies (1) in high-pressure two-component narrowed use limit that expires on developing low-pressure two- spray foam and in one-component foam January 1, 2025. As provided in section component spray foam products, the sealants as of January 1, 2020, and (2) VI.C.1.b.iii, the vast majority of process of reformulation has been more in low-pressure two-component spray applications for spray foams are difficult than for high-pressure two- foam as of January 1, 2021. The change anticipated to be able to transition to component spray, because it must have of status applies to the following acceptable alternatives by January 1, a significantly longer shelf life. The blowing agents: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, 2020, for high-pressure two-component product manufacturer must have time to and blends thereof; blends of HFC- spray foam and as of January 1, 2021, for determine a workable reformulation, a 365mfc with at least four percent HFC- low-pressure two-component spray process that is expected to last up to two 245fa, and commercial blends of HFC- foam. However, for the military, there years. The products then need to be 365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC- are several unique performance tested, which is expected to take 227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc requirements related to weapon systems approximately one to one and a half and Formacel TI. The Agency is aware that require extensive testing and years. This includes testing both the of several companies that have begun to qualification prior to adoption of formulation in separate containers (A- transition.195 However, a change of alternatives for the currently used and B-side) and ensuring the long-term status date of January 1, 2020, is foams. The same is true for other stability of the final blown foam once necessary for high-pressure two- specialty applications with unique the two parts are mixed to blow the component spray foam to allow military requirements such as undersea; foam. Based on those technical hurdles, sufficient opportunity for affected aerospace; and chemical, biological, and we are establishing a reasonable but entities to address the technical issues expeditious change of status date of associated with using a different foam 193 UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and January 1, 2021 for low-pressure two- Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision blowing agent, including the time component spray foam. XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information For one-component foam sealants, we on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. 195 Public and private sector commitments made believe a reasonable time for 194 FTOC, 2011. Report of the Rigid and Flexible at the White House Roundtable on October 15, 2015 reformulation is one year and for testing Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 is available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the- Assessment. This document is accessible at: http:// press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama- is one to two years. Testing for this ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ administration-and-private-sector-leaders- application should be shorter than that FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. announce. required for low-pressure two-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86850 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

component spray foam because testing environmental organizations, NRDC and because such products are often is required only for a final formulation IGSD. manufactured well-before their ‘‘use-by’’ in an aerosol can for one-component We have grouped comments together dates; they are manufactured in bulk foam sealants and because no and responded to the issues raised by and marketed to consumers at hardware certification testing would be required the comments in the sections that and other stores where they may have for the one-component foam sealant, follow, or in a separate Response to a fairly long shelf-life (up to a year); and unlike for high-pressure two-component Comments document which is included are typically purchased by the general foam. We are establishing a change of in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– public and may be used by the status date of January 1, 2020, after OAR–2015–0663). purchaser well after the purchase date. which date, no more one-component i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed Thus, for the one-component canisters it foam sealants (cans) may be would be much more difficult to plan manufactured using the specified HFC Comment: BASF and Dow supported for and avoid stranded inventory, which blowing agents; the manufacturer may EPA’s distinctions between different would then need to be disposed of, for sell and the end user may continue to types of rigid PU spray foam, including this end-use. Moreover, because these use cans that were manufactured prior low-pressure two-component spray PU products are widely used by the general to January 1, 2020. We limit the foams, high-pressure two-component public and may not be used at or near applicability of the use prohibition on spray PU foams, and one-component the time of purchase because of their closed cell foam products (discussed in spray foam. They stated that the longer shelf-life, it is significantly more section VI.C.3), so that it does not apply distinctions are important because the difficult to ensure that users are aware to closed cell foam products produced different applications require different of the regulations and also to ensure through the use of a one-component chemistries and result in different compliance by the end user. EPA has spray foam manufactured prior to the challenges for formulators. BASF gave a taken a similar approach for aerosol status change date. variety of examples of formulation products that are largely purchased by challenges for specific blowing agents individual consumers rather than c. How is EPA responding to comments? and applications. businesses. See, e.g., 79 FR 46139, Response: EPA appreciates the August 6, 2014; 80 FR 42884, July 20, EPA received several comments from support for the distinctions between 2015. Similar issues apply to low individuals and organizations with these three applications. various interests in foam blowing agents pressure two-component foam kits, such and spray foam in particular. Comments ii. Change of Status Dates as extended shelf lives. In contrast, high were in reference to the descriptions of Comment: CPI, SFC, Clayton pressure two-component spray foam kits the applications in the preamble to the Corporation, and Dow Chemical are primarily marketed to businesses; proposed rule, the proposed change of Company all stated that EPA should high pressure two-component spray status dates, and the narrowed use clearly state that the end-use change of foam kits are frequently formulated on- limits for military and space- and status decisions apply to the act of a demand, are typically used much closer aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing manufacturer combining the component to their purchase date, and typically do agents. Most commenters supported the chemicals (i.e., polyol, blowing agent, not have a long shelf-life. In this final proposed listing decisions, with some catalyst) in their plant to form the rule, the change of status date applies to opposing or suggesting different change polyol resin blends and packaging the the manufacture of the one-component of status dates. Commenters supported blends into a drum, canister, or can that foam canisters or low pressure two-part the narrowed use exemption for military is sold to end users. Clayton spray foam kit, and end users may still and space- or aeronautics-related uses. Corporation noted that advantages to purchase and use one-component foam Some commenters suggested a similar this approach include greater canisters or low pressure two-part spray narrowed use limit for a polyurethane transparency for enforcement, efficient foam kits manufactured after the change preformed composites, and suggested raw material management by the of status dates. either providing a separate listing for manufacturers, improved production Comment: Clayton Corporation this specific use or as including it under planning for compliance with the suggested making the change of status the low pressure two-component spray regulatory control, avoidance of date January 1, 2021, after which low- foam application. ‘‘abandoned’’ inventories in the supply pressure two-component spray Commenters included the American chain, and clarity to the marketplace polyurethane foam kits containing HFCs Chemistry Council’s Center for the that resin blends made prior to the cannot be manufactured. This Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) and Spray change of status dates can still be used commenter stated that this change of Foam Coalition (SFC), organizations without restrictions. status date is necessary for low pressure representing the foam industry; BASF Response: EPA proposed that for high two-component spray foam and Dow, two major systems houses; pressure two-component spray foam kits manufacturers, based on when the HFO Foam Supplies, Honeywell and and for low pressure two-component stability research and certification Chemours, suppliers of alternative foam spray foam kits, the change of status listings would be completed. Dow stated blowing agents; Clayton Corporation, a date would apply to both the that a January 1, 2021 change of status manufacturer of low-pressure two- manufacture of the kits and the use of date for low pressure two-component component spray polyurethane foam those kits by the end user. For one- spray foams is a target that will be kits; Structural Composites and component foam, EPA proposed that the difficult to achieve. BASF supported Compsys, manufacturers of a change of status date would apply to the EPA’s proposed change of status date for specialized composite foam product for manufacture of the one-component foam low pressure spray foam. Chemours boats and refrigerated trailers; the canisters but that end users could still strongly encouraged EPA to establish a National Marine Manufacturing purchase and use one-component foam change of status date of January 1, 2023 Association (NMMA), an organization canisters manufactured before the or later for low pressure two-component representing manufacturers of boats; the change of status date to apply the foam spray foams. They claimed such date National Aeronautics and Space sealant. EPA adopted a different should not be until multiple low-GWP Administration (NASA); and approach for one-component foams alternatives with appropriate technical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86851

performance qualities become this was the quickest and easiest status date for low pressure two- commercially available and they noted application, taking six to 18 months. component spray foam, a manufacturer that there were stability issues and NRDC and IGSD supported EPA’s has successfully transitioned to other uncertainties about the only low-GWP decision to ban manufacture of rigid alternatives. For one component spray alternative currently commercially polyurethane spray foams between 2020 foam, one manufacturer has committed available. Honeywell expressed concern and 2021. to converting 95 percent of its one that if the change of status date is later Response: To date, a number of foam component spray foam products from than January 1, 2019, EPA’s action supply houses and spray foam HFCs to HFOs and hydrocarbons by could slow down the momentum that is applicators have successfully used summer 2016 and a second already supporting adoption of low- trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene manufacturer has committed to GWP alternatives. NRDC and IGSD as a blowing agent in high pressure two- transitioning to use of hydrocarbons as supported EPA’s decision to establish component spray foam and they have a blowing agent in one to two years from change of status dates of January 1, generally had lead times of one to two now.197 HFC-134a is not currently used 2020, for one-component foam sealants years to work through the transition. A in high-pressure two-component spray and high pressure two-component spray change of status date approximately foam systems. foam and January 1, 2021, for low three years from now should provide pressure two-component spray foam. sufficient lead time to transition other iii. SNAP Review Criteria Response: EPA disagrees with those products, including both reformulation Comment: Foam Supplies, Inc., the commenters who claim a status change of products (one-half to one and a half supplier of the alternative ecomate, date later than January 1, 2021, for low years) and certification testing (one to supported EPA’s proposal to change the pressure two-component spray is one and a half years). Another listing status of HFC blowing agents in necessary. One manufacturer of low alternative, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is the spray foam applications in the pressure two-component spray foam kits expected to become commercially proposed rule from acceptable to has successfully used HFO-1234ze(E) as available in mid-2017; we expect that a unacceptable. The commenter a blowing agent for at least one of its change of status date of January 1, 2019, mentioned a number of potential products, demonstrating that the would not provide enough time for both advantages of using ecomate in spray technical challenges with stability of reformulation of products with foam, including thermal efficiencies that HFO are surmountable with alternatives and testing. January 1, 2020, comparable to or better than foam blown sufficient research and development.196 will allow more than two years to with HFCs; ability to use with existing We also note that there are other develop foam blowing formulations spray foam dispensing equipment; commercially available alternatives for using HFO-1336mzz(Z) and test them, competitive pricing; shipping and this end-use in addition to HFO- and will allow for additional supply of handling requirements the same as for 1234ze(E); as mentioned in the blowing agent. In addition, there are HFC foam systems; availability of preamble to the NPRM, the Foams other acceptable alternatives available systems that meet fire resistance and Technical Option Committee has also for this end-use, e.g., ecomate. other safety specifications for various identified CO2 and water as options (81 Comment: BASF supported the industry and building codes; and recent FR 22869), and both are acceptable proposed change of status date for one- increases in production capacity. Foam substitutes. The approximate four-year component spray foam of January 1, Supplies, Inc. described ecomate as an period before the change of status date 2020. environmentally benign blowing agent will allow sufficient time for Response: EPA appreciates the (no GWP, no ozone depletion potential manufacturers of low-pressure two- support for the proposed change of and VOC exempt) that is readily component spray foam kits to complete status date and we are adopting it in the available to replace HFC blowing agents working through the technical final rule. in polyurethane spray foam. challenges of alternatives, allowing for Comment: NAFEM commented that Response: We appreciate the support two years for reformulation and one to the change of status date for the blowing for the proposed rule and for the update one and a half years for testing. Setting agent HFC-134a does not provide about the recent increases in a change of status date of January 1, manufacturers with sufficient time to manufacturing capacity of ecomate and 2019, would not allow sufficient time integrate new blowing agents into their other features of this substitute that for identifying, reformulating and products. The transition away from allow it to be available for use in rigid testing alternatives for the various HFC-134a requires additional capital PU spray foam. product types being manufactured. investments, dedicated research and Comment: NAFEM commented that Comment: Dow Chemical Company development resources, employee EPA has failed to recognize important and BASF commented that the proposed training, product testing and complications with the blowing agents change of status date for high pressure certification. Therefore, NAFEM that it now proposes as acceptable two-component spray foam of January 1, requests that HFC-134a be listed as an alternatives. NAFEM member Unified 2020, is appropriate. Chemours acceptable alternative for ten years after Brands describes such complications in Company stated that the change of the rule is finalized, and under no their comments on the August 2014 status date for high-pressure two- circumstances should the change of proposal for a different rule, specifically component spray foam systems should status date be earlier than 2022. mentioning the alternatives pentane, be January 1, 2021, to allow for Response: NAFEM does not specify water-based blowing agents and methyl additional supply of alternatives and to the end-use for which it submitted this formate: allow foam manufacturers sufficient comment. While the commenter lists time for conversion to lower GWP actions they claim would be needed in 197 FACT SHEET: Obama Administration and alternatives. Honeywell stated the order to transition from HFC-134a to Private-Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious transition for high pressure two- another alternative, they have not Commitments and Robust Progress to Address component spray foam can occur a year provided any detail regarding the time Potent Greenhouse Gases. October 15, 2015. Accessible online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ earlier, by January 1, 2019, asserting that it would take for the various actions. the-press-office/2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama- Moreover, as noted in our response to administration-and-private-sector-leaders- 196 Kline et al., 2015. comment above regarding the change of announce.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86852 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Pentane based blowing agents are strong pentane is not currently listed as an rigid PU spray foam, allowing continued candidates due to their insulation acceptable blowing agent for use in two- use of those blowing agents until performance, but require all foam fixtures component spray foams and the January 1, 2022. The specific foam and processes to be redeveloped due to the concerns raised by the commenter all blowing agents and end-uses are flammable nature of the refrigerant. Water- based blowing agents are environmentally relate to its use in a refrigerated system codified in appendix U to subpart G of friendly, but suffer from poorer insulation and not to spray foam primarily used for 40 CFR part 82. Based on recent performance and also are more affected by building construction. Methyl formate discussions with other government processing temperature which requires has not been listed as acceptable in the agencies, the most recent U.S. space improved control of fixture temperatures. three applications addressed in this flight program is still being developed, Methyl formate is also environmentally rule; the blowing agent ecomate, which and it now appears that it may not be friendly, but has had significant shrinkage contains methyl formate, is listed as possible to qualify all foams needed issues once units have been placed in the acceptable. Water-based blowing agents with alternative foam blowing agents by field. This agent requires very specific foaming processes to be developed to ensure are listed as acceptable in the three the January 1, 2022, change of status proper stability of the foam over time. While applications addressed in this rule. The date established in the July 2015 final viable alternatives do exist, the amount of concerns raised by the commenter can rule. The qualification process is testing and factory/process upgrades required be taken into consideration by the necessary to ensure the safety of space make it impossible to transition to any manufacturer in determining the vehicles. replacement by January 1, 2017. appropriate alternative to use for any b. What is EPA’s final decision? Response: We note that these specific foam-blowing kit or canister. comments submitted by Unified Brands 2. Revision to Change of Status Date of As proposed, EPA is revising the date on this action are the same comments it Certain HFCS and HFC Blends for upon which certain HFCs and HFC submitted on a different rule, which Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam blend foam blowing agents for space- addressed commercial refrigeration Applications and aeronautics-related applications foam. It is difficult to determine how change status from acceptable, subject to these comments relate to the specific a. Background narrowed use limits, to unacceptable. action in this proposal regarding spray In the July 2015 final rule, EPA EPA is revising the change of status date foam. As an initial matter, EPA is not established narrowed use limits for to January 1, 2025, for space- and taking action listing the mentioned foam certain HFCs and HFC blends for aeronautics-related applications. blowing alternatives for these three military and space- and aeronautics- Military uses will continue to have a foam blowing applications. We note that related uses in all end-uses except for January 1, 2022, change of status date.

TABLE 19—REVISIONS TO CHANGE OF STATUS DATES FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

End-use Substitutes Listing status *

Rigid Polyurethane: Appli- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or ance. of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Rigid Polyurethane: Com- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or mercial Refrigeration and of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- Sandwich Panels. acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or Flotation Foam. of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or Slabstock and Other. of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2019. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or Polyisocyanurate Lami- of. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- nated Boardstock. acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Flexible Polyurethane ...... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or of. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86853

TABLE 19—REVISIONS TO CHANGE OF STATUS DATES FOR FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—Continued

End-use Substitutes Listing status *

Integral Skin Polyurethane ... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or Boardstock and Billet of; Formacel TI, Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- (XPS). acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2021. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Polyolefin ...... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and blends there- Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or of; Formacel TI, and Formacel Z–6. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2020. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. Phenolic Insulation Board HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Acceptable subject to narrowed use limits for military or and Bunstock. blends thereof. space- and aeronautics-related applications * and un- acceptable for all other uses as of January 1, 2017. Unacceptable for military uses as of January 1, 2022 and unacceptable for space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. * Under the narrowed use limit, use is limited to military or space- and aeronautics-related applications where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.

c. How is EPA responding to comment? thermal protection and cryoinsulation. steering wheels, dashboards, and shoe EPA received comments from NASA Boeing stated that suppliers of foams soles. Polyolefin includes foam sheets and Boeing, two end-users of foams used in military or aerospace hardware and tubes. used in space- and aeronautics uses, may face significant obstacles meeting a Since EPA’s initial listing decision for addressing the descriptions of the host of performance and safety methylene chloride in flexible PU foam, applications in the preamble to the requirements imposed by Boeing, the the Agency has separately issued a proposed rule, the proposed change of military services, NASA or FAA and residual risk standard under section 112 status dates, and the narrowed use agreed that testing of blowing agents for of the CAA for flexible PU foam limits for military and space- and these niche markets may require more production. (National Emission aeronautics uses of certain HFC blowing time than for mass-market commercial Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants agents. Both commenters supported the items, due to customer and regulatory Residual Risk and Technology Review proposed modification to the change of agency approval requirements. for Flexible Polyurethane Foam status date for space and aeronautics. Response: EPA appreciates the Production, (79 FR 48073; August 15, We have grouped comments together support. 2014). In that regulation, EPA examined and responded to the issues raised by 3. Change of Listing Status for the risk posed by emissions from source the comments in the sections that Methylene Chloride in Foams regulated under a maximum achievable follow, or in a separate Response to technology (MACT) standard for flexible Comments document which is included a. Background polyurethane foam manufacturing. EPA in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– Methylene chloride, also known as determined that it was necessary to OAR–2015–0663). , has the chemical tighten the MACT standard to reduce Comment: NASA and Boeing formula CH2Cl2 and the CAS Reg. No. the level of risk posed by emissions of supported EPA’s proposed modification 75–09–2. EPA initially listed this methylene chloride from the regulated of the date on which the status of substitute as acceptable for flexible PU sources. In the residual risk standard, acceptable subject to narrowed use foam in the initial SNAP rule (79 FR EPA prohibited the use of methylene limits would change to unacceptable. 13044; March 18, 1994). In the April 18, chloride as an auxiliary blowing agent NASA stated that being able to use HFC- 2016, proposed rule, EPA proposed to in flexible PU slabstock foam blown foams in space-and aeronautics- change the listing status of methylene production operations at major sources. related applications through 2024 will chloride from acceptable to Relying on the risk analysis performed help ensure crew safety and vehicle unacceptable in flexible PU foam, for the MACT risk review, EPA reliability while providing additional integral skin PU foam, and polyolefin proposed to change the status of time to seek and qualify substitute foam. Flexible PU includes foam in methylene chloride from acceptable to foams in technologically-challenging furniture, bedding, chair cushions, and unacceptable in flexible PU foam. In applications such as space vehicle shoe soles. Integral skin PU includes car addition, because methylene chloride is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86854 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the only blowing agent in the integral methylene chloride from acceptable to chloride from acceptable to skin PU foam and polyolefin foam end- unacceptable in those end-uses. unacceptable when used as a blowing uses that is carcinogenic, EPA proposed agent in the production of flexible PU b. What is EPA’s final decision? that it posed greater overall risk to foam. At this time, we are not finalizing human health and the environment and As provided in Table 20, EPA is a change of status for integral skin PU proposed to change the status of changing the status of methylene foam and polyolefin foam.

TABLE 20—CHANGE OF STATUS DECISIONS FOR FLEXIBLE PU, INTEGRAL SKIN PU, AND POLYOLEFIN FOAM BLOWING AGENTS

End-use Substitute Listing status

Flexible PU ...... Methylene chloride ...... Unacceptable as of 30 days after date of publication of a final rule. Integral Skin PU ...... Methylene chloride ...... Acceptable. Polyolefin ...... Methylene chloride ...... Acceptable.

EPA initially proposed to change the acceptable to unacceptable on the basis Methylene chloride contains chlorine listing status of methylene chloride from that methylene chloride poses and thus could have an ODP. We are acceptable to unacceptable in flexible significantly greater risks than the other unaware of a calculated ODP for PU foam in order to be consistent with alternatives available for this end-use methylene chloride in the peer- the revisions to the MACT that because it is the only acceptable reviewed literature, but it has prohibited the use of HAP in slabstock alternative in these end-uses that is a historically been considered negligibly flexible PU foam production operations carcinogen and thus poses a small.199 Recent research indicates that at major sources. EPA is relying on the significantly greater toxicity risk. Based emissions of methylene chloride from risk analysis performed as part of the on public comments urging EPA to do multiple industrial sources have been risk review for the MACT, and which additional risk assessment before increasing and could have a detectible served as the basis for its decision to reaching such a conclusion for these impact on the ozone layer,200 despite revise the MACT, to support its two end-uses that are not subject to the the historical assumption of negligible determination in this rule that the MACT standard and were not part of the ODP. For flexible PU, available toxicity risk from methylene chloride in risk review of the MACT standard, we substitutes include acetone, CO2, this end-use is significant and that there are not finalizing a change of status for ecomateTM, HFC-152a, HFO- are other alternatives that pose an methylene chloride in integral skin PU 1336mzz(Z), methylal, saturated light overall lower risk based on our analysis and polyolefin foams in this action. HCs (C3–C6),201 trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- under the SNAP review criteria. See 81 i. How does methylene chloride trifluoroprop-1-ene, and water. Of the FR at 22876, April 18, 2016. As a policy compare to other blowing agents for the other available alternatives for flexible matter, the Agency considers it flexible PU end-use with respect to PU, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- inappropriate to continue to list as SNAP criteria? trifluoroprop-1ene contains chlorine has acceptable a substitute that is prohibited an ODP, which is 0.00024 to 0.00034. In the proposed rule, EPA provided in this end-use under other Estimates of its maximum potential environmental regulations. At best, information on environmental and impact on the ozone layer indicate a continuing to list a prohibited substance health risks of methylene chloride and statistically insignificant impact, as acceptable is misleading to the public other available alternatives (81 FR comparable to that of other substitutes as to whether the substitute is available 22875–76; April 18, 2016). In addition, in the same end-use that are considered and may be used; it also may lead to a a technical support document 198 that to be non-ozone-depleting.202 203 misallocation of resources if there are provides the Federal Register citations any users of HFCs in this end-use that concerning data on the SNAP criteria Methylene chloride has a GWP of are transitioning away by January 1, (e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, approximately nine. As shown in Table 2017, as required under appendix U to flammability) for methylene chloride 21, other acceptable alternatives have 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. and for these other, acceptable GWPs that are comparable or lower than For integral skin PU and polyolefin alternatives may be found in the docket methylene chloride’s GWP of nine foams, we also proposed to change the for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR– except for HFC-152a, which has a GWP listing status of methylene chloride from 2015–0663). of 124.

198 EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- Feng. Efficiency of short-lived halogens at blowing agent has withdrawn this agent from the Uses Considered in the Final Rule, Protection of influencing climate through depletion of market. Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for stratospheric ozone. Nature Geoscience, 2015. This 202 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. Certain Substitutes under the Significant New document is accessible online at http://DOI: ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential Alternatives Policy Program. September, 2016. 10.1038/ngeo2363 and is reported in ‘‘New ozone- Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of 199 INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on destroying gases on the rise; not controlled by Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Criteria treaty.’’. ScienceDaily. 16 February 2015. This 164. Methylene chloride, second edition. World document is accessible online at http://www. Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. Health Organization, 1996. This document is sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/ 203 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric accessible online at http://www.inchem.org/ 150216130241.htm. Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- documents/ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm. 201 EPA has also listed the hydrocarbon blowing 1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- 200 Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. agent brand Exxsol blowing agents as acceptable for dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ Chipperfield, S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Dhomse, W. flexible PU foam. However, the manufacturer of that Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86855

TABLE 21—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE COMPARED TO OTHER FOAM BLOWING AGENTS IN FLEXIBLE PU FOAMS 1

Blowing agents GWP ODP VOC Listing status

Methylene Chloride ...... 9 unknown ...... No ...... Unacceptable. Acetone; CO2 Ecomate; HFC-152a; Methylal; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- 0–124 0–0.00034 ...... No ...... Acceptable. trifluoroprop-1-ene; Water. AB Technology; HFO-1336mzz(Z); Methylal; Saturated Light HCs C3–C6 1 .... >1–9 0 ...... Yes ...... Acceptable. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-uses or additives combined with other acceptable blowing agents.

Methylene chloride does not meet the chloride as acceptable in this end-use, Residual Risk and Technology Review definition of VOC under CAA citing the presence of the OSHA for Flexible Polyurethane Foam regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) and is regulations as sufficient to address Production (79 FR 48073; August 15, excluded from that definition for the workplace risk. 2014). Moreover, we received no purpose of developing SIPs to attain and Information regarding general comments indicating current use of maintain the NAAQS. With the population risk indicated the highest methylene chloride in this end-use. exception of HCs, HFO-1336mzz(Z), and cancer risk for methylene chloride of all Thus, we expect that the industry has methylal, the other alternatives also the alternatives for this end-use and already transitioned away from this contain compounds that are excluded provided no summary information on substitute in that end-use. from the definition of VOC. The non-cancer risks for methylene chloride. manufacturer of HFO-1336mzz(Z) has Since that time, as part of the CAA c. How is EPA responding to comments? petitioned EPA to exclude HFO- section 112 HAP program, EPA EPA received comments from the 1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC performed a risk analysis for the flexible Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance under those regulations. As provided in polyurethane foam production source (HSIA), a trade group representing the our decisions listing these substitutes as category to determine the risk from chlorinated solvents industry. acceptable, we determined that emissions of hazardous air pollutants, Comments were in reference to EPA’s emissions of these alternatives in this primarily methylene chloride. Based on authority generally for the changing the end-use would not pose a significantly that risk analysis, EPA determined that status of a substitute (responded to in greater risk than that posed by other although methylene chloride emissions section VII.B in this document) and the available alternatives. did not pose an unacceptable health risk significance of the risk of methylene Methylene chloride exhibits no flash within the meaning of section 112(f) for chloride. HSIA opposed EPA’s proposed point under standard testing conditions the general population, there was a both changes of status for methylene chloride and thus is considered nonflammable, a cancer and a non-cancer health risk in three foam end-uses. although it does exhibit lower and that could be reduced at low cost. We have grouped comments together upper flammability limits of 13 percent Specifically, EPA determined to ban the and responded to the issues raised by and 23 percent, respectively. Of the use of HAP blowing agents containing the comments in the sections that various alternatives, ecomate, HFC- methylene chloride in order to protect follow, or in a separate Response to 152a, HCs, and methylal are flammable, public health with an ample margin of Comments document which is included and the others are nonflammable. The safety. 79 FR 48073; August 15, 2014. in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– flammability hazards of the flammable None of the other alternative blowing OAR–2015–0663). compounds in this end-use can be agents are regulated as hazardous air i. SNAP Review Criteria adequately addressed in the process of pollutants under the CAA. Based on the meeting OSHA regulations and fire analysis and the conclusions from the Comment: HSIA commented that codes. section 112 HAP program analysis and changing the listing status of methylene Health effects of concern with in light of the toxicity information for chloride on the basis that it is an animal methylene chloride include cancer, other available substitutes, EPA has carcinogen is incompatible with the liver, and kidney effects (longer-term determined that methylene chloride SNAP program principles and with all exposure) and neurotoxic effects (acute poses significantly greater risk than previous EPA regulation of toxic air exposure), in addition to irritation to the other available substitutes in this end contaminants. The commenter stated skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Other use. We note that we are not aware of that under all relevant federal programs, alternatives for this end-use have any use of this blowing agent in this before an agency can regulate on the potential health effects such as impacts end-use and no commenters indicated basis of carcinogenicity, it must make a on body weight, mononuclear that it was currently being used in this finding that the substance poses a infiltration of heart tissue, neurotoxic end-use. significant risk that can be eliminated effects, and irritation to the skin, eyes, by the restriction. and respiratory tract; no other ii. When will the status change? Response: We disagree that this action alternatives in this end-use have The status of methylene chloride in is inconsistent with the SNAP program evidence of cancer as a health effect. flexible PU foam is changing to principles. Under section 612 of the Act, Toxicity is not a significant concern in unacceptable as of 30 days after this EPA is required to list a substitute as the workplace for methylene chloride or final rule is published in the Federal unacceptable where there are other for the other available alternatives Register, January 3, 2017. This blowing ‘‘available’’ alternatives that pose less because they may be used for blowing agent has already been prohibited in overall ‘‘risk to human health and the flexible PU foam consistent with flexible PU foam manufacturing environment.’’ Under sections 612 of required or recommended workplace operations for major sources by EPA’s the Act, it is not necessary to eliminate exposure limits. In the initial SNAP National Emission Standards for or have zero risk in order to regulate; rulemaking, EPA listed methylene Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rather risk is assessed based on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86856 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

comparison to other alternatives and an flammability, contribution to smog Comment: HSIA commented that alternative must be listed as formation, and GWP. hazardous air pollutants under CAA unacceptable if there are other Response: We disagree that we did section 112, such as methylene chloride, alternatives that ‘‘reduce the overall not evaluate and consider the other are not addressed by the Montreal risk.’’ The SNAP principles reflect this SNAP review criteria is making our Protocol or Title VI, and that EPA lacks statutory mandate. However, by decision. Those criteria were discussed statutory authority to regulate toxic air prohibiting the use of methylene in detail at 81 FR at 22875–8- in the contaminants under CAA section 612. chloride in flexible polyurethane under proposed rule and are also discussed Response: EPA disagrees that the this rule, we are eliminating the above. As noted above, EPA determined Agency lacks authority to regulate identified toxicity risk posed by that that the risk based on the other criteria hazardous air pollutants under section substitute in this end-use where other was not significantly different. 612 and the commenter fails to cite to alternatives do not pose such a risk and Comment: HSIA commented that, any provision that would prohibit such where other risks are similar for both while Table 21 characterizes the ODP of regulation. Under section 612, EPA is methylene chloride and other available methylene chloride as unknown, EPA required to review alternatives for ozone substitutes. As to the commenter’s has on numerous occasions determined depleting substitutes and to list as statement that Concerning the that methylene chloride is ‘‘non-ozone- unacceptable those that pose greater risk commenter’s statement referring to depleting.’’ to human health or the environment methylene chloride as an animal Response: As discussed in the than other available substitutes. There is carcinogen, we note that the Agency preamble to the proposal, more recent nothing in section 612 that states or considers methylene chloride ‘‘likely to data indicate that methylene chloride even suggests that EPA is to review only be carcinogenic in humans,’’ based may have a measurable impact on the those substitutes that are not hazardous predominantly on evidence of stratosphere. In addition, more recent air pollutants and any definition of risk carcinogenicity at two sites in two-year studies using 3-dimensional would include the types of risks posed bioassays on mice, as per U.S. EPA atmospheric modeling have indicated by hazardous air pollutants, such as that another halogenated HC, trans-1,2- (2005a) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk cancer risk, neurotoxicity, and dichloroethylene, which has two Assessment.204 To the extent the reproductive toxicity. We note that EPA chlorine atoms like methylene chloride, commenter raises issues with EPA’s first listed methylene chloride as a has a small but measurable ODP of authority under other CAA programs, substitute for ODS under section 612 in approximately 0.00024 and an those programs are not at issue in this 1994 and the issue of EPA’s authority to atmospheric lifetime of 12.7 days.205 rulemaking. do so was not raised at that time, nor EPA has determined that the difference Comment: HSIA stated that in 1994, has it been raised in the intervening in ODP for the various alternatives in years. EPA concluded after conducting risk this end-use, including methylene screens that methylene chloride chloride, is not significant and does not ii. Relationship to Other Rules emissions from foam blowing in have a bearing on the change of status Comment: HSIA commented that the compliance with existing regulatory decision. proposed change of status for methylene standards were within the range of Comment: HSIA commented that chloride is based in part on a NESHAP acceptable carcinogenic risk. The EPA’s proposal ignored the distinction finding, which is based entirely on the instant proposal cites no piece of between hazard and risk, and thereby CAA § 112(f)(2) requirement that EPA hazard, exposure, or risk information overturns several decades of EPA and adopt ‘‘residual risk’’ standards that that has come to light over the past 22 other federal policy regarding the ‘‘provide an ample margin of safety to years to change that assessment. regulation of potential carcinogens and protect public health in accordance with Response: We disagree that there has other toxic materials. [§ 112]. HSIA argued that the SNAP rule been no new assessment of the risk from Response: For flexible PU foam, we is not based on, nor should be based on, methylene chloride for this end-use in are removing the acceptable listing for a an ‘‘ample margin of safety.’’ This the past 22 years. As noted, EPA substitute in order to be consistent with commenter also stated that the only recently performed a risk review for the other federal regulations that now relevant part of the NESHAP finding to flexible polyurethane foam production prohibit use of this substitute in this the SNAP decision is that the residual source category in which EPA evaluated end-use based upon a risk assessment risks to public health of seven the risk that remained from emissions performed for the MACT standard. That environmental hazardous air pollutants, from sources in this source category risk assessment did consider risk and including methylene chloride, was after promulgation of the MACT not just hazard (i.e., the probability of an found to be acceptable. standard. Based on that analysis and to adverse health effect, and not just the Response: EPA recognizes that the address risk, EPA concluded that it potential adverse health effects that residual risk review of the MACT should tighten the MACT standard by could occur, depending on exposure). standard found the residual risks to banning the use of methylene chloride We agree with the commenter that the public health of methylene and six other and six other HAP foam blowing agents. proposal did not quantitatively analyze hazardous air pollutants from flexible That same risk analysis supports EPA’s carcinogenic risk for the integral skin polyurethane production facilities to be action here. PU and polyolefin end-uses. Therefore, ‘‘acceptable.’’ Under section 112 of the Comment: HSIA commented that EPA we are not finalizing our proposal to CAA, where a risk is unacceptable, EPA failed to account for other factors that change the listing status of methylene is required to regulate emissions may present a greater risk to human chloride from acceptable to without consideration of cost. A health besides carcinogenicity, such as unacceptable in integral skin PU and determination that the risk is polyolefin foams. acceptable, however, is not a 204 Dichloromethane; CASRN 75–09–2 Integrated determination that there is no risk. EPA Risk Assessment System Chemical Summary 205 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric is also required to then determine Document. U.S. EPA, National Center for Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- Environmental Assessment. Accessible online at 1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- whether the existing standards ‘‘provide https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/ dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ an ample margin of safety to protect documents/subst/0070_summary.pdf. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. public health’’ or to protect against ‘‘an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86857

adverse environmental effect.’’ EPA with an ODS must be labeled as a authority under CAA section 610 and determined that it was necessary to ban product manufactured with an ODS. (58 noted that HCFC insulating foams were the use of methylene chloride based FR 8136, 8143–8150, February 11, 1993; exempt from regulation under that foam blowing agents to protect public 79 FR 64253, 64258–64259, October 28, section of the statute. EPA stated that health with an ample margin of safety. 2014). In contrast, closed cell foam ‘‘Title VI of the Act thus does not For purposes of the SNAP review of products blown with an ODS must be provide EPA with the authority to toxicity risks, EPA relied on that risk labeled as a product containing an ODS prevent imports of products containing analysis, which demonstrated a risk for labeling purposes. (58 FR 8136, those foams’’ (65 FR 42653, 42656). EPA from use of methylene chloride based 8150–8151, February 11, 1993; 79 FR did not, however, base this statement on foam blowing agents. As explained more 64253, 64258–64259, October 28, 2014). a full examination of the various fully above, EPA determined that the As of January 1, 2015, any product authorities under Title VI. In taking overall risk posed by methylene containing a closed cell foam blown final action on that proposal, EPA noted chloride, based on the risk from toxicity, with an HCFC must be labeled as a that while under section 610 it could was more significant than the risk posed product containing an ozone-depleting not ban the sale of HCFC foam by other available alternatives for this substance under the regulations at 40 insulation products, section 610 ‘‘does end use. CFR 82.106 implementing CAA section not address EPA’s ability to regulate the transition from use of ODS to 4. Closed Cell Foam Products 611. Section 610 restricts sale and alternatives in the manufacturing of a. Background distribution and offers of sale and products such as foam.’’ EPA further i. What are the affected end-uses? distribution of certain products noted: ‘‘Section 612 can restrict the use containing or manufactured with CFCs of a substitute in a product regardless of The foam sector includes both closed and HCFCs.206 Section 610(d)(3)(A) whether or not that product is cell and open cell foams. Closed cell explicitly provides an exception for considered nonessential under Section foams are specifically designed to retain foam insulation products containing 610’’ (69 FR 58275, September 30, the foam blowing agent in the cells; in HCFCs. EPA has implemented this 2004). insulation foam products, the foam restriction and the exception for HCFC blowing agent continues to perform a b. What is EPA’s final decision? foam insulation products through its function in providing thermal Nonessential Products Ban regulations As proposed, EPA is applying the insulation, once the foam has already codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart C. unacceptability determinations in this been blown. With open cell foams, the CAA section 605(a) prohibits the action for foam blowing agents to closed foam blowing agent completes its introduction into interstate commerce or cell foam products and products function once the foam is blown; almost use of any class II substance effective containing closed cell foam. In addition, all of the foam blowing agent escapes January 1, 2015, unless such EPA is applying all listings for foam from the open cells prior to import, and substance— blowing agents codified in the any vestigial amounts remaining do not (1) has been used, recovered, and appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G perform a function. recycled; to such products. Use of closed cell Foam blowing end-uses that contain (2) is used and entirely consumed foam products (e.g., manufactured rigid closed-cell foams include rigid PU spray (except for trace quantities) in the PU insulation or XPS boardstock) or foam (all three applications described in production of other chemicals; products that contain closed cell foam section VI.C.1); rigid PU commercial (3) is used as a refrigerant in (e.g., household and commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid appliances manufactured prior to appliances, boats) manufactured with an PU marine flotation foam; rigid PU January 1, 2020; or unacceptable foam blowing agent on or appliance foam; rigid PU slabstock and (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a after the specified date is subject to the other; rigid PU and polyisocyanurate fire suppression agent for nonresidential use prohibitions under SNAP. This laminated boardstock; polystyrene: applications in accordance with section includes, but is not limited to, extruded boardstock and billet; 612(c). incorporating a closed cell foam blown polystyrene: extruded sheet; polyolefin; The section 605(a) implementing with an unacceptable blowing agent into and phenolic insulation board and regulations codified at 40 CFR part 82, a subsequent product and installing a bunstock. Foam blowing end-uses subpart A restrict the use of virgin closed cell foam product or product containing open cell foams include HCFCs to air conditioning, refrigeration, containing closed cell foam. Foam flexible PU and integral skin PU. Open and fire suppression applications, with products or products containing foam cell phenolic, and some other open cell minor exceptions. Thus, while the manufactured prior to the specified date foams also exist within the SNAP foam Nonessential Products Ban does not are not subject to the use prohibition blowing end-uses that include closed apply to HCFC insulating foams, section whether manufactured in the United cell foams. Integral skin foam may 605(a) and its implementing regulations States or abroad. include a rigid surface with an interior prohibit the use of HCFCs for blowing i. How is EPA interpreting ‘‘use’’ of flexible core. foam in the United States. The foam blowing agents in closed cells ii. How do other stratospheric ozone combined effect of the Nonessential foams? Products Ban and the section 605(a) protection requirements apply to foam Section 612 requires EPA to products? implementing regulations is that HCFC foam insulation products may be promulgate regulations prohibiting the Several provisions of CAA Title VI imported, sold, and distributed in the replacement of ODS with certain and EPA’s implementing regulations are United States but cannot be substitutes and to publish lists of the relevant to HCFC foam products. Under manufactured in the United States. substitutes prohibited for specific uses regulations implementing CAA section In the preamble to a July 11, 2000, as well as those found acceptable for 611, EPA requires labeling of products SNAP proposed rule, EPA reviewed its those uses. EPA’s implementing that contain an ODS and those that are regulations at 40 CFR 82.174 state, in manufactured with an ODS. EPA 206 Section 610 does not address products part: ‘‘No person may use a substitute determined that open cell foams blown containing or manufactured with substitutes. after the effective date of any

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

rulemaking adding such substitute to amounts remaining in the cells, appliance foam; rigid PU commercial the list of unacceptable substitutes’’ (40 emissions of the foam blowing agent refrigeration and sandwich panels; rigid CFR 82.174(d)). The SNAP regulations occur at the time and place of PU marine flotation foam; rigid PU define ‘‘use’’ of a substitute as manufacture. Therefore, we are spray foam; polyolefin; and polystyrene including, but not being limited to, ‘‘use differentiating between closed cell and extruded boardstock and billet- the in a manufacturing process or product, open cell foam products for this unacceptability determination applies in consumption by the end-user, or in purpose. This is consistent with the both to use of an unacceptable foam intermediate uses, such as formulation different treatment of closed and open blowing agent and to use of closed cell or packaging for other subsequent uses.’’ cell foam products under the section foam products and products that (§ 82.172) 611 labeling regulations. contain closed cell foam manufactured With respect to other sectors, EPA has with an unacceptable foam blowing treated use of a product manufactured ii. When will use of closed cell foam agent on or after the change of status with or containing a substance as products with unacceptable blowing date for each end-use (January 1 of 2019, constituting use of the substance where agents be prohibited? 2020, or 2021). the product holds some amount of the For changes of status finalized in this c. How is EPA responding to comments? substance, the substance continues to rule (section VI.C.1 and VI.C.2), the perform its intended function, and the unacceptability determination applies to EPA received several comments from substance is likely to be emitted in the use of closed cell foam products and individuals and organizations with United States either during use of the products that contain closed cell foam various interests in foam blowing product or at the time of its disposal. where the products are manufactured on agents. Comments were in reference to For example, an aerosol can is or after the change of status date. As EPA’s proposed application of manufactured to contain a substance as noted in the July 2015 rule with respect unacceptability determinations of foam a propellant, and then that propellant to MVAC and stand-alone refrigeration blowing agents to closed cell foam leaks, is released by the end user during equipment (80 FR 42884), it is products and products containing use of the aerosol can’s contents, or is reasonable to allow use of products closed cell foam manufactured with emitted at the time of disposal if it has manufactured before the change of unacceptable blowing agents, to EPA’s not already been used up. In the July status date to avoid market disruption, authority for the proposed new 2015 rule, in changing the status of creation of stranded inventory, and interpretation, to the proposed change certain substances with respect to perverse incentives for releasing these of status dates, and to questions about aerosols, EPA prohibited use of aerosol substances to the environment. This a specific application. Some products containing those substances, applies also to products that are commenters supported EPA’s proposed while stating that products manufactured outside the United States application of unacceptability to manufactured prior to the change of before the change of status date and products, while others opposed that status date could still be used after that imported afterwards. Buyers should interpretation. Two commenters date (80 FR 42883). By analogy, we are obtain documentation from importers suggested different change of status now interpreting ‘‘use’’ of a foam that the imported products were dates from those EPA proposed, one blowing agent to include use of a closed manufactured or in inventory before the suggesting an earlier date and the other cell foam product manufactured after change of status date. suggesting a later date. the specified date. For such products, For alternatives that have already Commenters included CPI, an the foam blowing agent remains in the been listed as unacceptable with a organization commenting on behalf of cells and continues to be used for the change of status date of January 1, the polyurethanes industry; Honeywell purpose of insulation during the 2017,207 or earlier—namely, HCFC and Chemours, suppliers of alternative lifetime of the product. Furthermore, blowing agents listed as unacceptable in foam blowing agents; Whirlpool, a emissions of the foam blowing agent appendices K, M, Q, and U to 40 CFR manufacturer of appliances using foam occur at the time of disposal of the part 82 subpart G, and HFC blowing insulation; Structural Composites and closed cell foam product. Thus, agents listed as unacceptable for rigid Compsys, manufacturers of a emissions from a closed cell product PU and PIR boardstock, extruded specialized composite foam product for used in the United States can be polystyrene sheet, and phenolic foams boats and refrigerated trailers; NMMA, expected to occur in the United States in appendix U to 40 CFR part 82 subpart an organization representing regardless of whether the product was G—the unacceptability determination manufacturers of boats; and manufactured domestically or abroad. applies to use of closed cell foam environmental organizations, NRDC and This action ensures that products products and products that contain IGSD. manufactured abroad and subsequently We have grouped comments together closed cell foam manufactured on or imported will be treated the same as and responded to the issues raised by after the date one year after the date of products manufactured domestically. the comments in the sections that publication of a final rule. This timing However, as noted above in section follow, or in a separate Response to is intended to allow importers and VI.C.1, the use prohibition does not Comments document which is included international manufacturers of such apply to use of rigid PU one-component in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– products time to adjust their foam sealant cans or low pressure two- OAR–2015–0663). component spray foam kits that are manufacture and import plans. For i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed manufactured prior to the change of substitutes listed as unacceptable with a status dates for those applications. change of status date after January 1, Comment: Honeywell supported EPA is not treating use of an open cell 2017—namely, HFC and HFC blend EPA’s proposal to allow the continued foam product as constituting use of the blowing agents listed as unacceptable in use of closed cell foam and products foam blowing agent. The foam blowing rigid PU slabstock and other; rigid PU containing closed cell foam, where such agent in an open cell foam product does foams were manufactured prior to the 207 There will also be a change of status on not continue to perform its intended January 1, 2017 for flexible PU and integral skin PU, date on which the substitutes with function during the lifetime of the but these are open cell foams and are not part of which they were blown become product. Except for insignificant this rule for closed cell foams. unacceptable. The commenter stated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86859

that this is particularly important for 180 days should be sufficient. Thus, we iii. SNAP Authority, Interpretation, and refrigerated containers and trailers that do not see that it is appropriate to Impacts travel across international borders and change the proposed change of status Comment: Chemours, Honeywell, are used in service for five to ten years, date. NMMA, Compsys and Structural and then sold at the end of their life for Comment: Whirlpool suggested that Composites, NRDC, and IGSD all use as storage, living space, or other EPA should grant the same lead-in supported EPA’s proposal to prohibit applications. Honeywell commented period for use of imported products the import of closed cell foams, and that EPA should continue to allow a containing unacceptable HFC blowing appliances containing them, that have refrigerated trailer that was agents as it granted for use of HFCs in been produced with and contain manufactured with an unacceptable domestic product manufacture. This blowing agents whose status has been foam blowing agent before the commenter stated that manufacturers changed to unacceptable. They unacceptability date to be resold at the had just over 53 months from considered this to be fairer than the end of its life, which would come well publication of the July 2015 rule to current situation, in which products after the change of status date. complete a transition of their domestic containing foam blown with Response: EPA agrees that allowing manufacturing lines and products unacceptable foam blowing agents may the use of closed cell foam products and manufactured on these lines before the be imported and sold in the United products containing closed cell foam January 1, 2020 change of status date States while domestic manufacturers are that were manufactured prior to the (for appliance foam). Whirlpool change of status date results in allowing prohibited from making and selling an requested that the change of status date identical product. Compsys and refrigerated containers and trailers to be be set to July 1, 2021, in order to used for their useful life in refrigerated Structural Composites and Honeywell provide an equitable transition period, noted that EPA’s proposal would transport and then for reuse in other assuming that this rule would be applications. remove the current incentive for U.S.- finalized in late 2016. based manufacturers to move ii. Change of Status Date Response: EPA disagrees with the production outside of the United States Comment: Honeywell supported commenter and is finalizing the change in order to use less expensive EPA’s proposal to provide a transition of status dates as proposed. We disagree substances with higher environmental period for closed cell foams, and with Whirlpool that it is necessary or impacts in nations that do not have such products that contain such foams that equitable for manufacturers of products stringent requirements, thereby were blown with a substance that is outside the United States containing protecting the environment, U.S. jobs, already unacceptable, such as an HCFC. closed cell foams, such as appliances, to and U.S.-based small businesses. The commenter stated, however, that have until July, 2021, to continue using In contrast, CPI opposed EPA’s the proposed date of one year after unacceptable HFC blowing agents for proposal and urged EPA to reconsider or publication of the rule is longer than the U.S. market. Their domestic redefine its interpretation of use. This necessary and suggested the compliance counterparts, in comparison, must stop commenter raised concerns about date should instead be within 180 days using unacceptable HFC blowing agents potential unintended consequences and after publication of the final rule. as of January 1, 2020. EPA first signaled inconsistency in the treatment of foams Honeywell suggested that a 180-day its interest in regulating use of foam produced domestically and overseas. period would provide a reasonable products in an August 6, 2014, proposed CPI believed this interpretation leads to amount of time for transition to rule (79 FR 46125, 46154) and did not the possibility of prohibiting the import acceptable solutions, since near ‘‘drop withdraw that proposal. Manufacturers of products manufactured prior to the in’’ low-GWP alternatives are already with both domestic and foreign change of status date and thus treating commercial for closed-cell foam manufacturing facilities have gained imported products inconsistently with applications. experience and knowledge with use of domestically-produced products Response: EPA disagrees with the new blowing agents, and thus we expect manufactured prior to the change of commenter and is finalizing the change that future transitions will be quicker. In status date. CPI believed that this of status date of one year after addition, sufficient supplies of inconsistency suggests that EPA’s publication of a final rule, as proposed. alternatives are anticipated to be on the proposed action is beyond its authority EPA disagrees with Honeywell that a market beginning in 2017 to allow under the CAA or contrary to the intent 180-day period is sufficient to allow product development, which was an of the statute. CPI stated that they were importers and international important consideration when we set unaware of any precedent or authority manufacturers of such products time to the change of status date for a number that would allow EPA to interpret ‘‘use’’ adjust their manufacture and import of rigid PU foam end-uses, including differently based on the location of a plans. This would be giving less than appliance foam, in the July 2015 rule manufacturer’s facility, and thus half the time that EPA has given to any (80 FR 42925–26). Thus, we consider opposed EPA’s reinterpretation of use other sector or end-use for a change of that the proposed January 1, 2020, for foam products. In addition, CPI status where a substitute is currently change of status date for appliances elsewhere had suggested that EPA being used. EPA has heard from systems containing appliance foam blown with should consider the change of status houses and end users that alternative unacceptable alternatives still provides date to be the date a manufacturer foam blowing agents, including olefinic adequate time. For substitutes listed as packages polyol resin blends, including foam blowing agents, require significant unacceptable with a change of status the blowing agent, into a drum, canister, time for development and are not ‘‘drop date after January 1, 2017, the or can, and believed EPA’s in’’ replacements (e.g., 80 FR 42925–6, unacceptability determination applies to interpretation of ‘‘use’’ for products was 42928, July 20, 2015). At least one use of closed cell foam products and inconsistent with that suggestion. recently listed alternative foam blowing products that contain closed cell foam Response: EPA agrees with the first agent, HFO-1336mzz(Z), is not expected manufactured with an unacceptable set of commenters that our proposed to be commercially available until after foam blowing agent on or after the interpretation of ‘‘use’’ provides for that timeframe. Further, the commenter change of status date for each end-use more equitable treatment of domestic has not supported their statement that (January 1 of 2019, 2020, or 2021). and foreign manufacturing. We also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86860 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

find, as discussed by the commenters, normally occupied and unoccupied In addition, EPA is listing 2-BTP as that this interpretation of ‘‘use’’ will areas. In the United States, acceptable, subject to use conditions for have environmental and other benefits. approximately 90 percent of installed the streaming end use. The use EPA clarifies that the use prohibition total flooding systems protect condition requires that 2-BTP be used as would not apply to closed cell foam anticipated hazards from ordinary a streaming agent only for handheld products, or products containing such combustibles (i.e., Class A fires), while extinguishers in aircraft. foams, manufactured with unacceptable the remaining ten percent protect i. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire blowing agents prior to the change of against applications involving suppressants for these end-uses with status date, whether the product was flammable liquids and gases (i.e., Class respect to SNAP criteria? manufactured in the United States or B fires).208 It is also estimated that abroad. Thus, EPA would be approximately 75 percent of total (a) Total Flooding interpreting use the same way, flooding systems protect electronics EPA has listed a number of irrespective of the location of the (e.g., computers, telecommunications, alternatives as acceptable for the total manufacturer’s facility. Concerning process control areas) while the flooding end-use. In the proposed rule CPI’s suggestion that use should be remaining 25 percent protect other (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 2016) EPA based upon the date of manufacturing applications, primarily in civil aviation provided information on the and packaging a polyol resin, see (e.g., engine nacelles/APUs, cargo environmental and health properties of section IV.C.1.c.ii above. We note that compartments, lavatory trash 2-BTP and the various substitutes in this the definition of use in the initial SNAP receptacles), military weapons systems end-use. Additionally, EPA’s risk rule at 40 CFR 82.172 refers to use as (e.g., combat vehicles, machinery spaces assessments for 2-BTP and a technical ‘‘including but not limited to use in a on ships, aircraft engines and tanks), support document that provides the manufacturing process or product, in oil/gas and manufacturing industries Federal Register citations concerning consumption by the end-user, or in (e.g., gas/oil pumping, compressor data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, intermediate uses, such as formulation stations), and maritime (e.g., machinery GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for or packaging for other subsequent uses.’’ space, cargo pump rooms). Streaming acceptable alternatives in the relevant applications, which have historically end-uses are available in the docket for D. Fire Suppression and Explosion used halon 1211 as an extinguishing Protection this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– agent, include portable fire 0663). In addition to halon 1301, the 1. Acceptable Listing of 2-BTP for Total extinguishers designed to protect current market for total flooding systems Flooding and Streaming against specific hazards. also includes HCFCs, HFCs, inert gases, a. Background b. What is EPA’s final decision? and a variety of NIK extinguishing agents (e.g., powdered aerosols, foams, The fire suppression and explosion EPA is listing 2-BTP as acceptable, water).209 2-BTP has an ODP of 0.0028, protection end-uses addressed in this subject to use conditions, for the total and the ODPs of other total flooding action are total flooding and streaming. flooding end-use. The use condition alternatives are zero to 0.048. 2-BTP has Total flooding systems, which requires that 2-BTP be used only in a GWP of 0.23–0.26. As shown in Table historically employed halon 1301 as a engine nacelles and APUs on aircraft in 22, the GWPs of other total flooding fire suppression agent, are used in both total flooding fire suppression systems. alternatives range from zero to 3,500.

TABLE 22—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF 2-BTP COMPARED TO OTHER TOTAL FLOODING AND STREAMING AGENTS

Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

2-BTP ...... 1 0.23–0.26 0.0028 Yes ...... Acceptable, subject to use conditions.

Total flooding

FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) ...... <1 0 Yes ...... Acceptable. CF3I ...... 0.4 0.008 Yes...... Acceptable. CO2 ...... 1 0 No ...... Acceptable. HCFC Blend A2 ...... 1,546 0.048 No...... Acceptable. HFC-227ea ...... 3,220 0 No ...... Acceptable. HFC-125 ...... 3,500 0 No ...... Acceptable. Water, Inert gases, Powdered aerosols A–E ...... 0 0 No ...... Acceptable.

Streaming

HCFC Blend B3 ...... 77 0.00098 No...... Acceptable. HFC-227ea ...... 3,220 0 No ...... Acceptable. HFC-236fa ...... 9,810 0 No ...... Acceptable. FK-5-1-12mmy2 (C6 Perfluoroketone) ...... <1 0 Yes ...... Acceptable. CF3I ...... 0.4 0.008 Yes...... Acceptable. CO2 ...... 1 0 No ...... Acceptable. Water ...... 0 0 No ...... Acceptable.

208 Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to 209 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire 210 Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ‘‘OH reaction Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing Agents. March, Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and rate constant, IR absorption spectrum, ozone 2002. Household Refrigeration Industries in the United depletion potentials and global warming potentials States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,’’ J. Geophys. Protection Agency. October 2015. Res., 117, D22301, doi:10.1029/2012JD019051.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86861

TABLE 22—GWP, ODP, AND VOC STATUS OF 2-BTP COMPARED TO OTHER TOTAL FLOODING AND STREAMING AGENTS—Continued

Fire suppressants GWP ODP VOC Listing status

H Galden HFPEs ...... 2,790–6,230 0 No ...... Acceptable. 1 GWP range represents GWPs for 30°N. to 60°N. and 60°S. to 60°N. emissions scenarios for a 100-year time horizon. A tropospherically well- mixed approximation of the GWP is equal to 0.59.210 2 HCFC Blend A is a blend consisting of HCFC-123 (4.75 percent), HCFC-22 (82 percent), HCFC-124 (9.5 percent), and D-limonene (3.75 per- cent). 3 HCFC Blend B is a proprietary blend consisting largely of HCFC-123.

In addition to ODP and GWP, EPA Exposure to 2-BTP is not likely during (b) Streaming Uses evaluated potential impacts of installation or servicing of 2-BTP total EPA has listed a number of emissions of 2-BTP on local air quality. flooding systems for engines and APUs alternatives as acceptable for the 2-BTP meets the definition of VOC on aircraft. These are both considered to streaming end-use. In the proposed rule under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR be unoccupiable areas, meaning (81 FR at 22824; April 18, 2016) EPA 51.100(s)) and is not excluded from that personnel cannot physically occupy provided information on the definition for the purpose of SIPs to these spaces, thus reducing the risk environmental and health properties of attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA from exposure to an inadvertent 2-BTP and the various substitutes in this compared the annual VOC emissions discharge. The risk of accidental end-use. Additionally, EPA’s risk from the use of 2-BTP as a total flooding activation of the fire extinguishing assessments for 2-BTP and a technical agent to other anthropogenic sources of system while personnel are present near support document that provides the VOC emissions considering both worst- the protected space is low if proper Federal Register citations concerning case and more realistic scenarios. Under procedures, including those of the 2- data on the SNAP criteria (e.g., ODP, either scenario, emissions are a small BTP system manufacturer as well as the GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for × ¥5 fraction of a percentage (5.6 10 aircraft manufacturer, are followed. acceptable alternatives in the relevant × ¥3 percent to 2.1 10 percent) of all Instructions on system installation and end-uses are available in the docket for anthropogenic VOC emissions in the servicing included in manuals for the 2- this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– United States in 2014.211 212 Given this BTP systems should be followed. In the 0663). In addition to halon 1211, the emission level, we determined it was case of an inadvertent discharge of the current market for streaming not necessary to perform an assessment system during maintenance activities on applications also includes HCFCs, of the effect of these emissions on the fire extinguishing system or HFCs, and a variety of other agents (e.g., 215 ambient ozone levels; any effect would dry chemical, CO2, water). Specific be insignificant. This is particularly true surrounding equipment, the cowl doors that would be open to allow access to alternatives used for streaming uses since use will be limited to aircraft and include HCFC Blend B (with an ODP of thus most releases of 2-BTP are the area will allow personnel to immediately egress and avoid exposure. roughly 0.01 and a GWP of roughly 80), expected to be at altitude, not in the HFC-227ea (with an ODP of zero and a lower troposphere. Other acceptable fire Protective gloves and tightly sealed goggles should be worn for installation GWP of 3,220), and C7 Fluoroketone suppression agents currently in use in (with an ODP of zero and a GWP of and servicing activities, to protect this end-use are also VOC (e.g., C6- approximately one). The ODP, GWP, workers in any event of potential perfluoroketone). and VOC status of 2-BTP and other discharge of the proposed substitute, EPA evaluated the risks associated alternatives that are also used as with potential exposures to 2-BTP accidental or otherwise. Filling or streaming agents are described in Table during production operations and the servicing operations should be 22. filling of fire extinguishers as well as in performed in well-ventilated areas. Regarding local air quality impacts, the case of an inadvertent discharge of EPA’s evaluation indicates that the use EPA compared the annual VOC the system during maintenance of 2-BTP is not expected to pose a emissions from the use of 2-BTP as a activities on the fire extinguishing significant toxicity risk to personnel or streaming agent to other anthropogenic system. EPA’s review of the human the general population. The risks after sources of VOC emissions considering health impacts of 2-BTP, including the exposure are common to many total both worst-case and more realistic summary of available toxicity studies, is flooding agents, including those already scenarios, as described in the previous in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA– listed as acceptable under SNAP for this section. Other acceptable fire HQ–OAR–2015–0663).213 214 same end-use such as C6- suppression agents currently in use as perfluoroketone. streaming agents are also VOC (e.g., C6- 211 ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, perfluoroketone, C7-fluoroketone). Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion EPA evaluated occupational and Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes for subject to use conditions, as a total Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. flooding agent for use in engine nacelles general population exposure at Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). and APUs on aircraft because the overall manufacture and at end-use to ensure 212 Based on the 2014 annual total VOC emissions that the use of 2-BTP as a streaming for the United States (i.e., approximately 17.13x106 environmental and human health risk posed by the substitute is lower than or agent will not pose unacceptable risks to MT) as reported in the National Emissions workers or the general public as Inventory (EPA, 2015). comparable to the overall risk posed by 213 ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives other alternatives listed as acceptable in discussed in the previous section. Also Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion the same end-use. Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes as a 215 ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire Streaming Agent in Civil Aviation Applications. Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold Storage, and Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes for Household Refrigeration Industries in the United 214 ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Total Flooding Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. States. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). Protection Agency. October 2015.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86862 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

discussed previously, EPA has exhaust system and low-lying source (5) Although unlikely, in case of evaluated the risks associated with ventilation to effectively mitigate ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should potential exposures to 2-BTP during potential occupational exposure; regular consult a physician immediately; production operations and the filling of testing and monitoring of the workplace (6) Manufacturing space should be fire extinguishers as well as in the case atmosphere should be conducted; equipped with specialized engineering of an inadvertent discharge of the fire (7) Employees responsible for controls and well ventilated with a local extinguisher during maintenance chemical processing should wear the exhaust system and low-lying source activities. appropriate PPE, such as protective ventilation to effectively mitigate The risks after exposure are common gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective potential occupational exposure; regular to many streaming agents, including work clothing, and suitable respiratory testing and monitoring of the workplace those already listed as acceptable under protection in case of accidental release atmosphere should be conducted; SNAP for this same end-use, such as C6- or insufficient ventilation; (7) Employees responsible for perfluoroketone. (8) All spills should be cleaned up chemical processing should wear the EPA is listing 2-BTP acceptable, immediately in accordance with good appropriate PPE, such as protective subject to use conditions, as a streaming industrial hygiene practices; gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective agent on aircraft because the overall (9) Training for safe handling work clothing, and suitable respiratory environmental and human health risk procedures should be provided to all protection in case of accidental release posed by the substitute is lower than or employees that would be likely to or insufficient ventilation; comparable to the overall risk posed by handle containers of the agent or (8) All spills should be cleaned up other alternatives listed as acceptable in extinguishing units filled with the immediately in accordance with good the same end-use. agent; industrial hygiene practices; (9) Training for safe handling ii. What further information is EPA (10) Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems such as pre- procedures should be provided to all providing in the acceptability listing for employees that would be likely to 2-BTP? discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches should be handle containers of the agent or In the ‘‘Further Information’’ column provided, as directed by applicable extinguishing units filled with the of the regulatory listings for total OSHA regulations and NFPA standards; agent; and (10) 2-BTP use as a streaming fire flooding agents, EPA is providing the use of this agent should also conform to extinguishing agent in handheld following information: relevant OSHA requirements, including • extinguishers in aircraft should be in This fire suppressant has a 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections accordance with UL 711, Rating and relatively low GWP of 0.23–0.26 and a 1910.160 and 1910.162. Testing of Fire Extinguishers, the short atmospheric lifetime of In the ‘‘Further Information’’ column Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approximately seven days. of the regulatory listing for the • This agent is subject to Minimum Performance Standard for streaming agent end use, EPA is requirements contained in a TSCA Hand-Held Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/ providing the following information: section 5(e) Consent Order and any AR-01/37), with regard to the size and • This fire suppressant has a subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR. number of extinguishers depending on relatively low GWP of 0.23–0.26 and a • For establishments manufacturing, the size of aircraft, and FAA short atmospheric lifetime of installing, and servicing engine nacelles Stratification and Localization of Halon approximately seven days. and auxiliary power units on aircraft 1211 Discharged in Occupied Aircraft • This agent is subject to using this agent: Compartments (DOT/FAA/TC–14/50). (1) This agent should be used in requirements contained in a Toxic accordance with the safety guidelines in Substance Control Act (TSCA) section iii. When will the listing apply? the latest edition of the National Fire 5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent EPA is establishing a listing date as of Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 TSCA section 5(a)(2) Significant New January 3, 2017, the same as the Use Rule (SNUR). effective date of this regulation, to allow Standard for Clean Agent Fire • Extinguishing Systems; For establishments manufacturing, for the safe use of this substitute at the (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, installing and maintaining handheld earliest opportunity. extinguishers using this agent: person(s) should be immediately c. How is EPA responding to comments? removed and exposed to fresh air; if (1) Use of this agent should be used breathing is difficult, person(s) should in accordance with the latest edition of EPA received several comments from seek medical attention; NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire organizations with various interests in (3) Eye wash and quick drench Extinguishers; the fire protection industry on the facilities should be available. In case of (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, proposed listing of 2-BTP as acceptable, ocular exposure, person(s) should person(s) should be immediately subject to use conditions, as a total immediately flush the eyes, including removed and exposed to fresh air; if flooding and streaming agent in certain under the eyelids, with fresh water and breathing is difficult, person(s) should aircraft applications. Comments were in move to a non-contaminated area. seek medical attention; reference to EPA’s approach to the end- (4) Exposed person(s) should remove (3) Eye wash and quick drench use categories for fire suppression, an all contaminated clothing and footwear facilities should be available. In case of expedited listing for 2-BTP based on to avoid irritation, and medical ocular exposure, person(s) should international halon replacement attention should be sought if irritation immediately flush the eyes, including deadline for handheld extinguishers on develops or persists; under the eyelids, with fresh water and new aircraft, conditions for use (5) Although unlikely, in case of move to a non-contaminated area. including minimum volumes for aircraft ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should (4) Exposed person(s) should remove compartments for safe handheld consult a physician immediately; all contaminated clothing and footwear extinguisher use and labeling of (6) Manufacturing space should be to avoid irritation, and medical extinguishers, and broadening the equipped with specialized engineering attention should be sought if irritation acceptable applications for 2-BTP. All controls and well ventilated with a local develops or persists; commenters supported the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86863

listing decision, however, several Response: EPA appreciates the It is also worth noting that while the commenters requested that EPA interest and support offered by the United States strongly supported related consider a listing date of no later than commenters in the acceptability listing actions taken at ICAO on halons August 2016 for 2-BTP in order to meet of 2-BTP. EPA is aware of the ICAO including the amendments to Annexes 6 an international target date of the end of requirement to replace halons on and 8, following the final amendment of 2016 for all aircraft entering service to handheld extinguishers on newly Annexes 6 and 8, the United States filed use handheld extinguishers that do not produced aircraft entering service after a difference to these new SARPs. As a use halon. Several commenters the end of this year. EPA has worked Contracting State to the Chicago suggested the reference to aviation- expeditiously to issue a final rule as Convention, the United States is specific guidance rather than UL quickly as possible noting that the required to either comply with or file standard as more comprehensive comment period closed June 16, 2016. differences to the Standards contained analysis of safe agent levels for Regarding comments urging EPA to in the ICAO Annexes; differences filed handheld extinguishers used onboard consider use of 2-BTP in other fire by member States are not considered aircraft. protection applications, as stated in the permanent, but rather States are meant Commenters included the proposed rule, EPA is reviewing to continuously review the status of International Coordinating Council of additional potential fire suppression their differences and inform ICAO if and Aerospace Industries Associations applications for 2-BTP as identified by when a difference is no longer (ICCAIA) representing Aerospace the submitter. necessary. Industries Associations of the United States, Europe, Canada, Brazil, Russia, ii. Listing Date iii. Use Conditions and Japan; the Halon Alternatives Comment: ICCAIA urged a final Comment: ICCAIA, Airbus, P3Group, Research Corporation, Inc. (HARC), a acceptability listing of 2-BTP by August and Boeing referred to discussion in the trade association; NAM; NEDA/CAP; 2016 in order to meet an international preamble regarding EPA’s evaluation of Boeing; Airbus also representing the deadline for halon replacement in potential exposure risk at end-use, aircraft manufacturers Bombardier, handheld extinguishers for all aircraft specifically to 2-BTP discharged from Dassault Aviation, and Embraer; and placed into service on or after December handheld extinguishers onboard P3Group. 31, 2016. That deadline was aircraft. The NPRM made reference to We have grouped comments together incorporated by the International Civil the UL 2129 standard, Clean and responded to the issues raised by Aviation Organization (ICAO) in 2011 Agent Fire Extinguishers, which the comments in the sections that into the revised Chicago Convention prohibits discharge in a confined space follow, or in a separate Response to Standards and Recommended Practices exceeding the cardiotoxic LOAEL for Comments document which is included (SARPs) for Annex 6, Operation of any fire suppressant. EPA stated that in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– Aircraft, which affects already certified ‘‘per UL 2129, labels for 2-BTP OAR–2015–0663). aircraft, and Annex 8, Airworthiness of extinguishers will contain the Aircraft, which affects new aircraft statement, ‘Do not use in confined i. Substitutes and End-Uses Proposed types, to include deadlines for halon spaces less than 896 cubic feet per Comment: Several commenters replacement in various applications on extinguisher.’ ’’ P3Group noted that the expressed support for EPA’s proposed aircraft including in handheld UL 2129 value of 896 ft3 minimum acceptability listing of 2-BTP; these extinguishers. Considering the confined space volume was based on included Airbus, Boeing, ICCAIA, NAM, additional design, reviews, and the LOAEL for the extinguishing agent, NEDA/CAP, and P3Group. Airbus noted certifications required following EPA’s and the extinguisher containing 3.75 the ‘‘complexity of fighting fires in acceptability listing for 2-BTP, ICCAIA lbs. of 2-BTP. Airbus noted that aircraft cabins and cockpits requires requested that EPA also consider the implementing the 896 cubic feet fire-fighting agents and equipment option of issuing a separate final rule for compartment size limit as a strict which also minimize health impacts on 2-BTP to meet this August timeline. requirement would exclude 2-BTP aircraft crews and occupants while Other commenters in support of handheld extinguishers from any ensuring continued safe flight and ICCAIA’s request for expedited listing smaller aircraft or even from use in large landing.’’ Airbus also cited the ‘‘need for 2-BTP included Airbus, Boeing, transport aircraft cockpits, service or for . . . EPA approval of 2-BTP as a pre- NEDA/CAP, and NAM. Airbus, Boeing, crew rest compartments if considered, requisite to allow commercialization in and NAM cited the adoption of halon in terms of fire-fighting, as individual the leading US civil aviation market. replacement deadlines for civil aviation compartments. All commenters noted Others including Boeing, ICCAIA, NAM, into the ICAO SARPs; in 2011, ICAO that the industry utilizes FAA guidance and NEDA/CAP noted the importance of amended its Annex 6, Operation of for determining appropriate minimum this acceptability listing to meeting the Aircraft. volumes relevant to aircraft ICAO Annex 6 deadline of December 31, Response: EPA appreciates the compartments as this guidance provides 2016, for halon replacement in significant interest in the acceptability more comprehensive analysis of handheld extinguishers for all new listing of 2-BTP to meet the ICAO acceptable agent levels under aircraft production aircraft, and requested EPA requirement to replace halons on operating conditions. Airbus suggested to consider an expedited listing for 2- handheld extinguishers on aircraft. EPA text for proposed use conditions for 2- BTP. Airbus and HARC both urged EPA has worked expeditiously to issue a BTP including required labeling per UL to continue review of other potential final rule as quickly as possible noting 2129, and a listing of the minimum applications of 2-BTP and broaden its that the comment period closed June 16, space volume in order to discharge acceptability listings in other uses 2016. The commenters did not provide other sizes of extinguishers on aircraft. which would support the long-term sufficient information to explain how an Boeing commented that they disagreed availability of the agent on the market. August 2016 acceptability listing fits with the Airbus proposed use HARC expressed concern that the into the design, specification, review, conditions for 2-BTP citing that these restriction to only aircraft use impacts and certification process for new requirements for aircraft are specified by the agent’s commercial viability as an production aircraft and how it would the FAA guidance which the industry aircraft halon replacement. have specifically affected this timeline. intends to follow.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86864 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Response: EPA appreciates the This fire suppressant is supplied to commenter, will not achieve the result clarification of the UL 2129 standard users as a solid housed in a double- they are seeking. As noted, Powdered and the information on the relevant walled hermetically-sealed steel Aerosol D is listed as acceptable for all FAA guidance that is intended to be container. When the unit is triggered by total flooding uses. If the commenter used by the industry to determine heat (300 °C), the product is believes that there is evidence to appropriate minimum volumes for pyrotechnically activated to produce support that Powdered Aerosol D aircraft handheld extinguishers. EPA is gases and aerosol particles from a cannot be used safely in some total revising the additional information on mixture of chemicals. EPA listed flooding uses, they should submit that 2-BTP use as a streaming fire Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable information to EPA and EPA could extinguishing agent in handheld subject to use conditions as a total consider it to determine whether it extinguishers in aircraft to indicate that flooding agent (71 FR 56359; September should initiate rulemaking to change the use should be in accordance with UL 7, 2006). The use conditions required acceptable listing. 711, Rating and Testing of Fire that Powdered Aerosol D be used only VII. How is EPA responding to other Extinguishers, the Federal Aviation in areas that are not normally occupied, public comments? Administration (FAA) Minimum because the Agency did not have Performance Standard for Hand-Held sufficient information at that time EPA received additional comments on Extinguishers (DOT/FAA/AR-01/37), supporting its safe use in areas that are topics not addressed in other sections of with regard to the size and number of normally occupied. Based on a review this document. These comments address extinguishers depending on the size of of additional information from the a host of issues, including EPA’s CAA aircraft, and FAA Stratification and submitter to support the safe use of authority to change the status of Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged Powdered Aerosol D in normally alternatives; perceived inconsistencies in Occupied Aircraft Compartments occupied spaces, EPA subsequently with the SNAP program’s ‘‘guiding (DOT/FAA/TC–14/50). determined that Powdered Aerosol D is principles;’’ perceived inconsistency also acceptable for use in total flooding with other actions; and interactions 2. Change of Listing Status for Certain systems for normally occupied spaces with other rules. Additionally, some Perfluorocarbons for Total Flooding (79 FR 62863; October 21, 2014). The commenters requested status changes While EPA proposed and requested listing provides that Powdered Aerosol for end-uses or alternatives that were comments on listing the PFCs (C4F10 D is acceptable for total flooding uses, not included in the proposed rule. and C3F8) as unacceptable in fire which includes both unoccupied and We have grouped comments together suppression total flooding uses, EPA is occupied spaces. In the October 2014 and responded to the issues raised by deferring final action at this time. EPA listing action, EPA noted that in a the comments in the sections that plans to continue assessing the merits of subsequent rulemaking, the Agency follow, or in a separate Response to taking action in this sector more would remove the previous listing of Comments document which is included broadly, based on additional acceptable subject to use conditions. in the docket for this rule (EPA–HQ– information provided during the b. What is EPA’s final decision? OAR–2015–0663). comment period on the use of A. General Comments alternatives in this end use. EPA As proposed, EPA is removing the requested advance comments on other previous listing in appendix O to 1. Proposed Status Listing Changes alternatives, specifically SF6 and HFC- subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 for Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable Comment: Several commenters, 125 in total flooding and HFC-227ea in including the Alliance, Clayton, EIA, both total flooding and streaming subject to use conditions as a total flooding agent (71 FR 56359; September NRDC, IGSD, Honeywell, NASA, Dow, applications, to improve our and CARB generally supported EPA’s understanding. We received several 7, 2006). This has been superseded by the listing of October 21, 2014 (79 FR actions related to the proposed status comments in support of the proposed changes. While these commenters action on PFCs and several commenters 62863) listing Powdered Aerosol D as acceptable for total flooding uses, which expressed their support for the SNAP requested that EPA eliminate or limit program, the Alliance emphasized the the use of additional high-GWP HFCs. includes both unoccupied and occupied spaces. importance of an amendment to the Other commenters requested that EPA Montreal Protocol for a gradual phase- take no action at this time with regard c. How is EPA responding to comments? down approach to HFCs and urged to the other alternatives for which EPA Comment: Chemours stated that it caution when changing listing status of sought advance comments, citing opposed the removal of the use substitutes under the SNAP framework. current use in challenging applications restrictions for Powdered Aerosol D The Alliance believe that a gradual such as aviation and the need to ensure based on the fatalities from the recent phasedown approach is important in their availability for these uses in the incident in a bank vault in Thailand order to allow for effective technology future. These comments provided us after the inadvertent discharge of a development and introduction, to allow with additional but limited information powdered aerosol system. Chemours for the building codes and safety on uses of SF6, HFC-23, HFC-125, HFC- noted that the industry still needed to standards process to align with the 227ea, HFC-134a, and HFC-236fa, learn about the appropriate use of this newly available low-GWP technologies confirming the specialized, niche technology. and applications, and to ensure energy applications for some of these agents. Response: EPA is aware of the efficiency performance is not 3. Removal of Use Conditions for incident at the Thai bank and diminished. Honeywell commented that Powdered Aerosol D understands the investigation continues. the proposed listing changes would lead We note that the substitute involved to significant emission reductions, a. Background was not Powdered Aerosol D. Regarding setting an example for other countries Powdered Aerosol D is a pyrotechnic the listing of Powdered Aerosol D under around the world to follow. Clayton particulate aerosol and explosion the SNAP program, a decision to not noted that EPA was extremely thorough suppressant that also is marketed under modify the acceptable subject to use in considering challenges posed by the the trade names of Aero-K® and Stat-X®. conditions, as advocated by the proposal and engaging with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86865

stakeholders. NASA noted that they take availability of acceptable alternatives for Response: EPA has provided regulatory compliance seriously and existing equipment (e.g., IPR, and information in the docket to this have committed significant time and commercial comfort and industrial rulemaking and in the preamble to the resources to implementing cooling equipment) that may be affected July 2015 rule concerning changes in environmentally acceptable materials in by the proposed rule. the production of both fluorinated and their facilities and programs. Dow Response: EPA disagrees with the non-fluorinated alternatives to ODS. stressed that any new technologies commenter that there are almost no EPA has no information to suggest there should be built upon success with available alternatives for the substitutes will be a shortage in refrigerant supply attainable timelines that allow the for which EPA proposed a status for existing equipment. industry to innovate, develop, and change. As noted in the NPRM and This action does not require commercialize alternative technologies section VI.A.5–9 of the preamble to the retrofitting existing equipment. EPA is for our stakeholders. final rule, EPA has listed a number of confident there will be adequate supply Response: EPA thanks these alternatives as acceptable in new to service existing equipment either commenters for supporting the equipment in residential and light based on continued production or based proposed listing changes. As noted commercial AC and heat pumps, cold on recovery and reuse of existing elsewhere in this document, EPA views storage warehouses, and centrifugal and supplies of the refrigerants undergoing a this final action as complementary to positive displacement chillers for change of status. EPA bases this the United States’ support for adopting judgment on our historical experience. commercial comfort AC. CO2, propane, an amendment to the Montreal Protocol isobutane, R-441A, ammonia, HFO- For example, CFC chillers can still be to phase down production and 1234ze(E), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- serviced even though we have had no consumption of HFCs. trifluoroprop-1-ene, and not-in-kind production or import of newly produced Comment: Chemours and Honeywell technologies such as Stirling cycle, CFCs since 1996. Similarly, halons supported EPA’s efforts to reduce GHG water/lithium bromide absorption, continued to be used even though we emissions associated with the use of dessicant cooling, or evaporative ceased production and import of newly HFCs in the production of insulating cooling, are acceptable in new produced halons in 1994. HCFC-22 was foams and other foam products by equipment for one or more of the end- phased out of production for new listing high-GWP foam blowing agents uses for which EPA proposed a change equipment as of 2010, but is still being as unacceptable and approving in status. The commenter also did not produced and used for existing technically appropriate lower-GWP equipment. provide information as to why they alternatives as sufficient quantities of EPA’s action does not ban production believe these alternatives would not be those lower GWP solutions become of any HFC and as noted above, some viable in new equipment. Moreover, commercially available. of the HFCs will be blended with HFOs Response: EPA appreciates the EPA does not agree that the change of to develop new refrigerants. While there commenters’ support for changing the status for certain refrigerants in specific may be a shift between chemical or status of high- GWP foam blowing uses would result in a corresponding refrigerant producers, it is not clear that agents. reduction in demand for non-ozone- there will be a loss for these companies Comment: NEDA/CAP, an depleting refrigerants in new and demand may increase in other organization representing manufacturers equipment. The overall global demand global markets. It is possible that the of a variety of refrigeration and air for refrigeration and air conditioning price of refrigerants undergoing a status conditioning equipment among others, equipment has expanded while ODS are change will increase if supplies commented that its members have being phased out and EPA anticipates decrease relative to demand. End users recently made substantial capital this expansion will continue. There will with existing equipment may take steps investments replacing IPR and be continued use of other non-ozone- to reduce the impact of price changes on commercial building ACs, warehouse depleting alternatives not subject to this the open market such as recovering and chillers, and other equipment that action in new equipment. recycling their refrigerant, as many utilized ODS refrigerants that have been Comment: NEDA/CAP commented supermarkets currently do with HCFC- phased out because acceptable non-ODS that EPA should address in the 22. refrigerants were available for these rulemaking (1) EPA’s analysis of the As noted throughout this rule, we uses. NEDA/CAP’s members are impact of the proposed status changes anticipate many refrigerants will be concerned that there are almost no on the refrigerant supply base for available and not just propane. Propane acceptable, commercially available existing affected refrigeration and is only acceptable for a limited number alternatives for the refrigerants proposed cooling equipment; (2) whether the of refrigeration and AC end-uses, for a status change and the proposed supply base for this existing equipment including household refrigerators and rule would reduce demand for non-ODS will remain viable for the expected life freezers, and is not currently listed as refrigerants for new equipment. NEDA/ of recently replaced equipment; (3) what acceptable for chillers, cold storage CAP believe it is ‘‘unfair and the economic impacts are for businesses warehouses, or retail food unreasonable’’ for EPA to propose to related to the inevitable drop in demand refrigeration—refrigerated food change the status of certain HFCs from for existing refrigerants; (4) whether processing and dispensing equipment. acceptable to unacceptable in new alternative refrigerants other than EPA has listed a number of HFO and equipment without simultaneously propane will be available and what the HFO/HFC refrigerants as acceptable listing acceptable, commercially conditions for their use will be; (5) the with no use conditions for use in each available alternatives. For these reasons, impact of the proposal on the of the refrigeration and AC end-uses NEDA/CAP recommended that EPA production of current acceptable HFCs undergoing a change of status in this evaluate the actual availability of and propylene and indicate what the rule (e.g., R-450A and R-513A for all alternatives, not their theoretical alternatives available are for retrofit of these end-uses; HFO-1336mzz(Z), availability, in its examination of existing equipment if existing chemical HCFO–1233zd(E), HFO-1234ze(E) and alternatives under CAA section 612. producers cease manufacturing these R-514A for centrifugal chiller). In Specifically, NEDA/CAP recommended compounds as a result of the proposed addition, CO2 and ammonia are that EPA evaluate the continued rule. acceptable refrigerants in retail food

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86866 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

refrigeration—refrigerated food stated that EPA should not implement to human health and the environment processing and dispensing equipment the change of status for HFC-134a before will be available, both for existing and and ammonia is acceptable in cold 2025, which would allow time for new users of certain substitutes. In storage warehouses. system redesign, testing, and to change considering when alternatives will be Chemical producers may continue to state and local codes in cases where the available for these other end-uses, we produce the HFCs undergoing a change refrigerants are flammable. UTC believes have considered the technical of status for uses that are acceptable that any change of status dates earlier challenges that the end users are facing including for servicing of existing than January 1, 2025, would effectively with the transition. Under both the equipment and for end-uses that are not lead to a ban on the sale of air cooled approach used in this rule and the subject to a change of status. In the case chillers in many states and force grandfathering approach, we consider of propylene, that refrigerant has only customers to use existing units or to whether there is a basis to establish the been listed as acceptable as a refrigerant switch to lower efficiency packaged change of status later than the effective in IPR, and EPA has not proposed to products and VRF systems that are still date of the rulemaking and thus the change that status. Nothing in this allowed to use R-410A. While EPA and approaches result in a similar outcome. action calls for retrofitting. However, we large parts of the industry are Comment: Johnson Controls note that EPA has published lists of committed to a transition away from commented that there is speculation acceptable refrigerants for new HFC refrigerants, there is simply no that EPA chose the change of status equipment and retrofits, and these are forcing mechanism at the state and local dates in this rule to meet obligations available at https://www.epa.gov/snap/ level that would lead to near-immediate proposed in the North American refrigeration-and-air-conditioning. adoption of the necessary code changes. amendment proposal to the Montreal Response: EPA looked at each change Protocol. 2. Proposed Status Change Dates of status independently and has Response: The change of status dates Comment: The Alliance appreciated provided a rationale for the specific date in this rule were arrived at after careful that EPA considered the DOE energy for each end-use affected by this final consideration of the availability of other conservation standards for the rule. EPA does not agree that any substitutes in each end-use. These rulemaking, but urged the Agency to specific minimal number of years decisions were informed by extensive better coordinate the proposed status should be required for a change of status consultation with stakeholders change dates with the ongoing DOE and notes that there may be instances throughout the rulemaking process. energy conservation rulemaking where immediate action is justified. While the United States is seeking an schedules. With regards to NAFEM’s comments amendment to the Montreal Protocol, it Response: EPA appreciates this supporting an extension, it is not clear is not clear what control measures, if comment. The Agency and DOE have if NAFEM is requesting additional time any, might be adopted. The changes in increased our dialogue to better for an end-use covered in this action or status here relate to use in the United understand the timing that each is whether the request concerns the July States of alternatives that are safer taking under our separate authorities. 2015 rule, which is beyond the scope of overall for human health and the Comment: Arkema, NAFEM, and UTC this action. EPA disagrees with environment. requested that EPA delay the change of Arkema’s comments regarding the Comment: Arkema provided a list of status dates to provide adequate time for availability of alternatives. EPA has steps needed for ‘‘product line product research and development, listed as acceptable alternatives that development’’ including ‘‘researching product testing, certification, and time pose lower overall risk to human health options, risk assessment, analyzing for the approved alternatives to become and the environment than the existing manufacturing capabilities, widely available on the marketplace. substitutes we are listing as working with component suppliers, Arkema noted that the proposed rule unacceptable, which supports a building test units, testing beta units, seems to acknowledge these difficulties transition away from the substitutes that updating manufacturing processes only for uses involving either the federal we have concluded provide a greater (including employee training), building government or the aeronautics industry, risk to human health and the pre-production units, field testing, giving extra time for military, space, and environment. The commenter did not completing the customer approval aeronautics applications to transition provide information as to why these process, phasing in production, from HFCs in foam blowing and in alternatives would not be viable in the disposing of trapped inventory, and chillers. Arkema also stated that if the end-uses addressed in this action. training installation and maintenance rule is finalized as proposed, EPA Comment: NAFEMF suggested that personnel’’ and ensuring ‘‘products should allow all users to claim an EPA provide manufacturers an conform to local building codes.’’ For exemption based on the unavailability opportunity to qualify for additional new cold storage warehouses and for of feasible alternatives or explain the status change extensions under SNAP’s refrigerated food processing and standard (e.g., availability of grandfathering provisions. They noted dispensing equipment, Arkema alternatives, cost, environmental that EPA has historically allowed suggested a 2021 transition date for R- benefits, etc.) it is trying to satisfy in manufacturers that transitioned to a 407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407D, R-407E, setting the change of status dates. substitute deemed acceptable by the and R-407F, claiming that ‘‘[t]his NAFEM requested an extension of at Agency to continue using the previously decision should mirror previous least 10 years for the proposed status acceptable substitute until the current supermarket decisions for new and changes to allow sufficient time for safe supply was used up, even if that retrofit applications.’’ For HFC-134a, product development and testing, while occurred after the rule’s compliance they proposed a 2025 status change date Arkema suggested specific dates for date. and as their ‘‘[r]ationale’’ only stated specific substitutes and end-uses, Response: While EPA is not applying ‘‘[s]upply, suitability of alternatives.’’ ranging from 2021 for 407A–F in new ‘‘grandfathering’’ in this rulemaking, we Response: The commenter is mistaken chillers, refrigerated food processing have established status change dates for as to EPA’s previous action for the and dispensing, and cold storage different sectors and end-uses that supermarket systems end-use category warehouses to 2025 for most reflect the date by which we expect within the retail food refrigeration end- applications of R-134a and R-410A. UTC alternatives that pose lower overall risk use. In SNAP Rule 20 (80 FR 42870; July

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86867

20, 2015), EPA changed the status of their comments submitted in response difference in emissions saved by only one of the identified refrigerants to the NPRM for the July 2015 rule, the prematurely transitioning the industry (R-407B) for this end use and commenters stated that the purpose of to these substitutes. established a January 1, 2017 status the original SNAP program was to Response: EPA disagrees with the change date for new equipment. evaluate substitutes for ODS, and that commenter’s assertion that the proposed For the reasons provided in section now using this same framework to rule violates Executive Order 13563, VI.A.6 and in our proposal, we have evaluate non-ODS against other non- given that there is currently no DOE determined that January 1, 2023 is a ODS on the basis of GWP, for example, standard that results in cumulative reasonable but expeditious date for the violates the authority granted under regulatory burden with this rule. change of status for new cold storage CAA section 612. They argued that Further, we expect that with a change of warehouses. For new refrigerated food these new compounds are not status date of January 1, 2021, for processing and dispensing equipment, substitutes for ODS, and thus are not household refrigerators and freezers, the recommended 2021 date for the R- real ‘‘substitutes’’ in the context of the companies would be able to coordinate 407 series refrigerants matched our original SNAP framework. Arkema compliance with an energy conservation proposal and for the reasons provided in emphasized its support for an HFC standard with a compliance date in section VI.A.7 and our proposal we have amendment to the Montreal Protocol, 2020. Thus, we believe that in fact, the finalized that change of status date. but asserted that EPA is proposing to potential cumulative impacts of the two The commenter did not otherwise ‘‘replace non-ODS with new non-ODS sets of regulations are reasonable. See provide any support for why a chemicals based on [GWP],’’ which goes also the discussion in section VI.A.8.ii bifurcated 2021 and 2025 change of against the mandate of CAA section 612 on the change of status dates for status date was sufficient and needed to to ‘‘replace’’ ODS. AHAM stated that household refrigerators and freezers. address the technical challenges for CAA Title VI was not intended to 2. GWP Considerations either the cold storage warehouse end- ‘‘provide EPA broad, general and roving use or the refrigerated food processing authority to regulate refrigerants, foams Comment: Mexichem commented that and dispensing equipment end-use and chemicals in whatever EPA focuses the analysis of HFC-134a category. For the 2025 date, the circumstances it deems desirable if they on comparative GWP instead of commenter provided no justification for are unrelated to ozone depletion.’’ conducting a comprehensive analysis why the supply or suitability of existing Likewise, Mexichem asserted that the that considers all of the agency’s alternatives was not sufficient to repeated references to class I and class criteria—atmospheric effects, exposure assessments, toxicity data, flammability, support the proposed January 1, 2023, II substances in Title VI demonstrate and other environmental impacts, such status change date for cold storage that, in enacting CAA section 612, as ecotoxicity and local air quality warehouses but would be to support a Congress was concerned with phasing impacts—as well as a full alternatives January 1, 2025, date. The commenter out ODS, and that there is ‘‘no mention analysis of performance, availability, did not provide any evidence that in section 612 (or its legislative history) hazard, exposure, and cost of the supply of alternatives was lacking to that Congress ever intended for this law alternatives. Arkema also commented justify their proposed 2025 status to be used to regulate second-generation that EPA relies on the differences in change date for HFC-134a in both end- substances on the basis of [GWP].’’ GWP to justify the proposed status uses. EPA had already determined that Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that it lacks the authority to changes, but fails to explain why those not to be true in a previous rulemaking differences result in a larger risk for (80 FR 42904; July 20, 2015). Further, regulate the continuing replacement of ODS with the substitutes whose listing certain HFCs in each end-use. For the commenter did not indicate why the example, Arkema stated that EPA does supply for HFC-134a alternatives in status is addressed in this action. In this rulemaking, EPA considered whether not explain the rationale for proposing either end-use would not be available to change the status from acceptable to until 2025 yet the supply of alternatives such replacement should continue to occur given the expanded suite of other unacceptable for some high-GWP for the R-407 series refrigerants would substitutes, such as R-407A with a GWP be available by 2021, or why the set of alternatives to ODS in the relevant end- uses and our evolving understanding of of 2,107, but not R-407F with a GWP of alternatives would be different. risks to the environment and public 1,824, for cold storage warehouses. B. Authority health. There is no question that the Response: EPA disagrees with the substitutes subject to a change in status commenters that it relies solely on GWP 1. General Authority in this action (e.g., HFC-134a) directly in the evaluation of the alternatives Comment: EIA supported EPA’s replaced ODS in the relevant sectors. under the SNAP program. In all cases, authority to regulate substances within See section VII.A.2 of the preamble to EPA considers the intersection between a comparative risk framework. EIA the July 2015 rule for additional the specific alternative and the commented that EPA’s SNAP program discussion of non-ODS alternatives. particular end-use and the availability was created to assure the health and Comment: AHAM stated that this of substitutes for those particular end- environmental safety of alternatives for proposal violates Executive Orders uses. When reviewing a substitute, EPA ODS that were being phased out, which 12866 (9–30–93), 13563 (1–18–2011), compares the risk posed by that is achieved through EPA’s comparative and 13610 (5–10–12) requiring that substitute to the risks posed by other review process. EIA also indicated that agencies consider the cumulative effects alternatives and determines whether the proposed rule is an important step of regulations, including cumulative that specific substitute under review towards implementing the President’s burden. AHAM commented that given poses significantly more risk than other CAP. the new energy efficiency standards alternatives for the same use. In our Response: EPA appreciates the placed on the appliance industry, being analysis of overall risk, we evaluate the commenter’s support of the rule. forced to also comply with the timeline criteria at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). . For Comment: Arkema, AHAM, and and additional restrictions proposed in particular substances, EPA found Mexichem expressed the opinion that this rulemaking would be unnecessarily significant potential differences in risk the proposed rule is outside the scope burdensome on affected entities. They with respect to one or more specific of EPA’s regulatory authority. Similar to especially emphasized the minimal criteria, such as flammability, toxicity,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86868 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

or local air quality concerns, while instead of basing it on the ‘‘total [GWP] warming impacts associated with a otherwise posing comparable levels of of the substitute and the indirect particular substitute. For example, the risk to those of other alternatives in contributions to global warming caused inherent energy efficiency of the specific end-uses. Regarding GWP, that by the production or use of the substitute is not the same as the energy is one of several criteria EPA considers substitute (e.g., changes in energy efficiency of equipment using that in the overall evaluation of the efficiency), and environmental release substitute. To analyze energy efficiency alternatives under the SNAP program. data, including available information on and other indirect climate impacts There are a number of examples in this any pollution controls used or that would require EPA to identify not only rulemaking where we determined not to could be used in association with the every type of equipment but also each change the status of HFC-134a, for substitute.’’ model, identify or predict the amount of example, because the GWP of other Response: EPA disagrees that GWP each available substitute that might be alternatives is a concern for a specific was the only criterion considered in used in each type of equipment, make use. For particular substances, such as determining whether to change the assumptions about how the equipment R-407A, EPA found significant potential status of a substitute. Further would be operated, assess what type of differences in risk with respect to one or information and explanation on use of electricity was used to both manufacture more specific criteria, such as GWP, GWP as a metric is provided in section the substance and power the equipment while otherwise posing comparable VII.A.3 of the preamble to the July 2015 or manufacturing process, and so on. levels of risk to those of other rule and in the following response. See the July 2015 rule, 80 FR at 42921 alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA Considerations of atmospheric effects and section 6.4.2 of the response to also notes that several decisions and related health and environmental comments document for that rule. We included in this action are based on impacts have always been a part of do, however, consider issues such as significant potential differences with SNAP’s comparative review process, technical needs for energy efficiency respect to other factors including and the provision of GWP-related (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in flammability, and local air quality. For information is required by the SNAP determining whether alternatives are example, we are listing propylene and regulations (see 40 CFR 82.178 and ‘‘available,’’ and have followed that R-443A as unacceptable in centrifugal 82.180). The issue of EPA’s authority to practice in this rulemaking. We believe chillers, positive displacement chillers, consider GWP in its SNAP listing that there is a sufficient range of cold storage warehouses, and residential decisions was raised in the initial rule acceptable alternatives that end users and light commercial AC and heat establishing the SNAP program. In the will be able to maintain energy pumps in particular because of concerns preamble to the final 1994 SNAP rule, efficiency levels. We also note that about local air quality. We are listing all EPA stated: ‘‘The Agency believes that federal energy conservation standards refrigerants identified as flammability the Congressional mandate to evaluate will continue to ensure that equipment Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– substitutes based on reducing overall regulated by this rule will not increase 2013 and all refrigerants meeting the risk to human health and the its indirect climate impacts. criteria for flammability Class 3 in environment authorizes use of global Comment: Honeywell commented ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013 as warming as one of the SNAP evaluation that even greater emissions reductions unacceptable for use in retrofit unitary criteria. Public comment failed to could be projected by using more up-to- split AC systems and heat pumps in the identify any definition of overall risk date GWP values. Honeywell residential and light commercial air that warranted excluding global commented that the use of out-of-date conditioning and heat pumps end-use. warming’’ (59 FR 13044, March 18, GWP values in such an important rule Concerning differences in GWP values 1994). Consistent with that can cause confusion, especially among and how EPA decided to change the understanding, the 1994 SNAP rule those trying to evaluate and compare status of certain alternatives while other specifically included ‘‘atmospheric low-GWP technologies. Instead of GWP alternatives remained acceptable, EPA effects and related health and values from the IPCC Fourth did not establish bright-line cutoffs but environmental impacts’’ as evaluation Assessment Report (AR4), Honeywell rather considered which substitutes are criteria the Agency uses in undertaking suggested that EPA consider adopting available on an end-use by end-use comparative risk assessments (59 FR the IPCC AR5 GWP values in the future. basis. For the example of refrigerants in 13044, March 18, 1994; 40 CFR Response: EPA used the GWP values the cold storage warehouse end-use that 82.180(a)(7)(i)). That rule also in the IPCC AR4 in the NPRM and Arkema cites, we considered that R- established the requirement that anyone continues to use these in this final 407F has the lowest GWP of the submitting a notice of intent to rulemaking to maintain consistency refrigerant blends that are both widely introduce a substitute into interstate with other rules and facets of the SNAP commercially available and can be used commerce provide the substitute’s GWP program and with other U.S. domestic for those situations and types of (see 40 CFR 82.178(a)(6)). Accordingly, programs (e.g., EPA’s Greenhouse Gas equipment where HCFC-22 is used. R- we have considered the relative GWP of Reporting program, codified at 40 CFR 407A has a higher GWP and otherwise alternatives in many SNAP listing part 98). Using consistent GWPs allows is comparable to R-407F, and thus decisions. EPA did not propose to revise for more efficient operation of U.S. results in higher overall risk to human its regulations to abandon consideration climate programs and facilitates health and the environment. of GWP in this rule. integration with other public and See also section VII.A.3 of the In response to comments that EPA private sector programs on preamble to the July 2015 rule and failed to assess and account for indirect international, national, state, and local section 6.3.3 of the Response to climate impacts, we note that we do not levels. It also reduces the burden on Comments for the NPRM for that rule have a practice in the SNAP program of stakeholders of keeping track of separate for additional information on GWP including indirect climate impacts in GWPs when interacting with these considerations under the SNAP the overall risk analysis. EPA initially programs. Use of the AR4 GWPs will program. contemplated such considerations in the also ensure compatibility with the Comment: Arkema commented that initial SNAP rule, but our experience Climate Action Report and other EPA makes GWP the sole criterion for has been that it is impractical to perform reporting requirements under the decisions about atmospheric effects, a detailed analysis of indirect global United Nations Framework Convention

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86869

on Climate Change (UNFCCC). the regulatory criteria for SNAP health and the environment in specific Countries, including the United States, evaluation when determining if a end-uses and end-use categories. that submit GHG inventories under the substitute poses more risk than other 3. Third guiding principle: Restrict UNFCCC have decided to use AR4 alternatives for the same end-use. those substitutes that are significantly GWPs for the GHGs that have AR4 Arkema stated that EPA’s policy has worse. EPA has based our decisions on GWPs, beginning with the inventories been to restrict a SNAP substitute only whether substitutes have significantly submitted in 2015.216 Adoption of AR5 if it is significantly worse than the greater risk than other available GWPs while other EPA and alternatives; however, the proposed rule substitutes for the same uses. For international programs are using AR4 ‘‘relies on differences in [GWP] to justify example, we did not propose and are GWPs likely would cause stakeholder reclassification.’’ Arkema further not finalizing today changes in status confusion, create an ongoing need to commented that, according to 40 CFR where there is only a marginal explain the distinction in GWPs in 82.178(a)(6), EPA is to consider difference in risk between two subsequent actions, and complicate information concerning GWP, including alternatives available or potentially decision-making. Also, use of AR4 both the total GWP of the substitute and available in the same end-use. As GWPs ensures that the SNAP program the indirect contributions to global described in the preambles to the uses widely relied on, published, peer- warming caused by the production or proposed and final rules, the Agency reviewed GWP data. EPA may consider use of the substitute, and environmental carefully considered the substances adoption of AR5 GWPs or other GWP release data, including available addressed in this action on the basis of values in the future. In any event, use information on any pollution controls the SNAP criteria, and concluded that of AR5 GWPs would not result in a used or that could be used in other alternatives presented a degree of change in EPA’s conclusions about the association with the substitute. Arkema reduced overall risk sufficient to comparative risk posed by the believes EPA fails to follow these warrant the actions being taken in this substitutes addressed in this rule. principles and instead, makes GWP the rulemaking. In response to the comment Comment: CARB recommended sole criterion for decisions about that the NPRM compares GWPs without establishing specific numerical limits atmospheric effects. Finally, Arkema explaining the significance of the for GWP of acceptable substitutes in commented that the proposed rule states differences for any effect on climate, certain end-uses. They recommended ‘‘EPA is not setting a risk threshold for EPA did not estimate differences in prohibiting all refrigerants with a GWP any specific SNAP criterion, such that temperature change or other physical greater than 150 in cold storage the only acceptable substitutes pose risk climate metrics due to the impacts of warehouses, refrigerated food below a specified level of risk.’’ Arkema the rule. EPA has not used these metrics processing and dispensing equipment believes this statement violates EPA’s in the past as measures of climate and household refrigerators and policy to regulate only significant risk in impact for other SNAP decisions. See freezers. For chillers, CARB a specific end-use because it asserts that section II.G and III on the use of GWP recommended prohibiting all the Agency ‘‘can ban a substance to as a metric for climate impact and the refrigerants with a GWP greater than reduce any risk, regardless of the significance of the rule for climate. 4. Fourth guiding principle: Evaluate 750. magnitude of the risk.’’ Response: EPA has not set ‘‘bright risks by use. EPA evaluated substitutes Response: EPA disagrees with the for specific uses and reached different line’’ cut offs based on GWP or the other commenter that the proposed rule SNAP criteria, for reasons explained in conclusions for the same substitute in violates the Agency’s regulations or different uses, depending on the specific numerous actions, including section guiding principles. See the preamble to IV.B of the SNAP Proposed Rule 20 (79 risks and other available or potentially the July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42940–42. available alternatives in the relevant FR 46135; August 6, 2014), sections IV.B We consider the proposed and final and V.C.6.(a) of the corresponding final uses. For example, we are listing rules to be consistent with the SNAP propane as acceptable, subject to use Rule 20 (80 FR 42920; July 20, 2015), guiding principles: section I.A of the proposed rule (81 FR conditions in new self-contained 1. First guiding principle: Evaluate commercial ice machines, new water 22812–22813; April 18, 2016), and substitutes within a comparative risk section I.A of this final rule. As noted coolers, and new very low temperature framework. As suggested by the first refrigeration equipment, while listing in those actions, the structure of the guiding principle, in all of the actions propane and all other ASHRAE SNAP program, which is based on a that EPA proposed and is today flammability Class 3 refrigerants as comparative framework of available finalizing, EPA evaluated the risk of unacceptable for retrofitting existing substitutes for a specific end-use at the substitutes compared to available or unitary split systems within residential time a decision is being made, does not potentially available alternatives. In that and light commercial AC and heat support the use of such bright lines. effort, a range of risk factors are well pumps. No action was taken to ban any 3. SNAP Review Criteria and Guiding described in this action. The factors that one HFC or other alternative across all Principles EPA considers are stated at 40 CFR end-uses. Additionally, as noted by the 82.180(a)(7). Comment: Arkema commented that commenter, we considered the potential 2. Second guiding principle: Do not the proposed rule fails to follow EPA’s risks of alternatives used for servicing of require that substitutes be risk free to be policies in the guiding principles, fails MVAC or commercial refrigeration apart found acceptable. EPA has not required to consider all relevant information as from new equipment or from retrofits of substitutes to be risk free. We defined by regulation, and fails to apply existing equipment. See section 6.3.6 of acknowledge in the proposed and final the Response to Comments for the rules that both the substitutes changing 216 The IPCC publishes Scientific Assessment NPRM for the July 2015 rule. Reports, including updated and expanded sets of status and the other available 5. Fifth guiding principle: Provide the GWPs, approximately every six years. The countries alternatives have risks. In this rule, as in regulated community with information that submit annual GHG inventories under the past SNAP rules, we have considered as soon as possible. EPA provided the UNFCCC update the GWPs that they use for those whether there are alternatives that are regulated community with information inventories less frequently. For example, the GWPs from the IPCC Second Assessment Report have been available or potentially available that as soon as possible by holding a series used for UNFCCC reporting for over a decade. pose a lower overall risk to human of workshops and public meetings

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86870 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

concerning this action and other comparative risk of the available testing,’’ and then additional time to regulatory issues relevant to various substitutes within an end-use. From a retool their facilities to manufacture the industrial sectors over the course of scientific point of view, it would be foam with an alternative blowing more than a year before we issued our inappropriate, and potentially not agent.219 NASA began development of proposal. See section 6.3.6 of the protective, for EPA to use the same spray polyurethane foams using HFC- Response to Comments for the NPRM concentration in ppm to determine 245fa in 2007 and only now in 2016 for the July 2015 rule. flammability risks or toxic expects to complete qualification.220 6. Sixth guiding principle: Do not concentrations for different substitutes, EPA did not base the narrowed use endorse products manufactured by rather than considering the LFL or limits for centrifugal and positive specific companies. Our change of exposure limit for the specific displacement compressor chillers for status decisions reflect the availability substitute. military marine vessels or for human- of multiple alternatives for each end- Comment: Arkema commented that rated spacecraft and related support use. Regarding endorsements, see the military, NASA, and the aeronautics equipment applications on the relative section V.B.6.a of the preamble to the industry would have special exceptions significance of the associated emissions; July 2015 rule at 80 FR 42896. for certain chiller and spray-foam rather, for informational purposes, we 7. Seventh guiding principle: Defer to applications for which there appears to indicated that emissions were not other environmental regulations when be little supporting technical detail in expected to be significant. EPA’s warranted. We note that this reads the record, but that at least for chillers decisions are based on the comparative ‘‘Defer to other environmental are based on the relative significance of risk of various alternatives considering regulations when warranted’’ (emphasis the associated emissions. Arkema asked the SNAP criteria, not based on added). Other regulations may not what the effect on the atmosphere achieving a specific climate benefit. ensure that substitutes that pose would be if the entire private sector had EPA provided information concerning significantly greater risk are prohibited the benefits of the proposed narrowed the estimated climate benefits where safer alternatives are available use limits for military marine vessels, associated with the proposed and final because those regulations do not human-rated spacecraft, and related rule. EPA did not calculate the benefits address all or address sufficiently the support equipment. or atmospheric impacts from every risk posed. EPA has considered the Response: We expect that the rest of possible scenario. potential impacts of other the private sector would not meet the Comment: AHRI, the Alliance, HARC environmental, health, and safety requirements for a narrowed use limit and NEDA/CAP all urged consistency in regulations. EPA carefully considered because substitutes that are acceptable, EPA’s stance on and implementation of these and other existing regulations subject to narrowed use limits, may only the SNAP program. AHRI and HARC under other programs when reviewing be used where reasonable efforts have encouraged EPA to adhere closely to the substitutes. For example, we considered been made to ascertain that other principles of the Agency’s position at the presence of OSHA regulations in alternatives are not technically feasible the Montreal Protocol and the initial addressing flammability risk in factories due to performance or safety 1994 SNAP framework. The Alliance where foam is blown. EPA did not requirements. Multiple alternatives with requested (1) that EPA clarify how the propose and is not finalizing a change lower GWPs are available for chillers proposal is consistent with a global in how this principle is applied. EPA and equipment manufacturers are phase-down approach to HFCs, (2) that continues to consider other already implementing them; 217 218 thus, EPA articulate how the SNAP program environmental, health and safety other alternatives are technically would be used in the context of regulations and notes these regulations feasible. See also sections VI.A.5.i and implementing an HFC amendment to where appropriate in our decisions. We VI.A.6.i of this rule for a discussion of the Montreal Protocol, and (3) that for also considered the existing MACT available alternatives. This is different any future rulemakings for a change of standard that prohibits the use of from the situation for military marine SNAP listing status, EPA publish a clear methylene chloride in flexible PU foam vessels and human-rated spacecraft and and predictable evaluation process by production for major sources, including related support equipment which have which risk factors are compared in the relying on the risk analysis performed many unique characteristics that make it comparative risk framework to make for EPA’s recent risk review of the more difficult and time-consuming to SNAP change of status decisions with MACT. See sections VI.A.2 and VI.C.4 evaluate and implement alternatives; transparency on how the factors will be regarding EPA’s consideration of other see the preamble to the NPRM at 81 FR weighted. NEDA/CAP expressed stratospheric ozone regulations. 22844, 22848 (April 18, 2016). In concern about the greater frequency of Concerning consideration of all addition, the time periods for new rules and listings and the ‘‘rolling relevant information as defined by qualification of products to meet and complex schedule’’ of change of regulation, we note that it is within the specifications for the military or for status dates, which could complicate discretion of the Agency to determine space flight and aeronautics-related industry’s ability to operate the installed which information is relevant out of the applications are significant. For base of existing equipment using total set of information in EPA’s example, in the case of foams, one refrigerants proposed to undergo a possession. The specific information aerospace company stated that it would change of status in new equipment. that must be provided to EPA for review take more than two years to develop, NEDA/CAP suggested that EPA provide under the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR test and qualify a new alternative, and a ‘‘master schedule’’ for the review and 82.178 informs, but does not govern, it will take at least another five years ‘‘to EPA’s decisional criteria for review of manufacture flight-representative foam 219 The Boeing Company. Comments on Proposed substitutes under 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7). samples, followed by ground and flight Rule to Change the Status of Certain Substitutes Concerning Arkema’s quotation from under the Significant New Alternatives Policy the proposed rule, it states that we do 217 Press release, ‘‘Ingersoll Rand Innovates HVAC Program. October, 2014. not use the same ‘‘bright line’’ risk Portfolio Using Next Generation, Low Global 220 Spray Foam Magazine, 2016. ‘‘SPF and SLS threshold for all substances. This is Warming Refrigerant, R-452B’’, June 16, 2016. Help NASA Explore Deep Space’’ September/ 218 Press release, ‘‘Trane Announces Significant October issue, 2016. This document is accessible at: consistent with EPA’s guiding Centrifugal Chiller Line Expansion and Services for http://sprayfoammagazine.com/spf-sls-help-nasa- principles, where we consider the United States and Canada.’’ July 13, 2016. explore-deep-space/.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86871

listing of substitutes, given the fact that Comment: AHAM commented that impacts associated with a particular ‘‘EPA’s increasingly ‘piecemeal’ new EPA has no justification for changing substitute. approach to SNAP revisions creates the listing status of compounds of C. Cost and Economic Impacts other business planning problems and which the toxicity, GWP, efficiency and potentially significant equipment other criteria of evaluation remain EPA received comments from compatibility issues for existing unchanged. Arkema, NAFEM, Structural Composites refrigerant, chiller and cooling Response: EPA disagrees. The suite of and Compsys, AHAM, and UTC in equipment.’’ available or potentially available which commenters provided data on the Response: EPA considers this final alternatives changes over time and the cost and economic impacts of the rule to be consistent with the framework availability of those alternatives enables proposed rule. These comments are in the initial SNAP rule, as explained in a broader review of comparative risk summarized in the response to section II of the NPRM at 81 FR 22816– under section 612(c). Further, our comments sections for the end-uses 9 and in section II of this preamble. This understanding of the impact that HFCs addressed in this final rule. We rule concerns specific uses of certain have on climate has evolved and summarize and respond to the more alternatives to ODS, including some become much deeper over the years. See general cost comments in this section. HFCs, while the North American the preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 1. Costs of Rule Proposal to amend the Montreal FR 42935–6. Comment: Arguing that we should not Comment: EPA received comments Protocol to add a global phase-down of suggesting that EPA provide more time HFCs concerns HFC production and change the status of R-407A and R-407B for cold storage warehouse, and should for the changes in status in order to consumption generally without avoid undue burden on the U.S. reference to specific uses. Reductions in find R-448A and R-449A acceptable for that end-use as well as for refrigerated economy. UTC commented that if this use of certain HFCs in specific end uses food processing and dispensing rule is finalized as proposed, industries due to changes of status under the equipment, AHRI stated that the ‘‘direct and companies utilizing many of the SNAP program are expected to result in refrigerant emissions in these end uses refrigerants and propellants affected by decreased production of those HFCs, represent a small percentage of the this rule will need to invest substantial which would contribute to the United overall life cycle climate performance’’ resources in order to promote States’ ability to implement reductions and that overall greenhouse gas compliance with the intended transition in production and consumption of HFCs emissions will increase if a less efficient over the next decade. AHAM stated that under a global phase-down of HFCs product were used. under EPA’s proposed change of status along the lines of the North American Response: EPA interprets this dates, the costs would be significantly Proposal. comment to be based on the SNAP higher during the transition to an With regard to specific quantification review criteria of ‘‘atmospheric effects,’’ alternative refrigerant as compared to a of reductions in overall risk to human which is discussed above in section date three years later, which would health and the environment, in the 1994 II.E.1. We have noted that part of our allow companies adequate time to rulemaking, we considered and rejected review of the overall risk to human structure costs and decrease risk over comments suggesting that we develop health and the environment that multiple years and at almost half the an index to rank all substitutes based on substitutes pose includes the GWP of a cost. AHRI noted that accelerating the risk. In the preamble to the rule, we particular substitute, and the GWPs of process for changing multiple product specifically noted that ‘‘a strict R-407A and R-407B are higher than platforms by even a single year can quantitative index would not allow for those of other alternatives in the cold significantly impact manufacturers’ sufficient flexibility in making storage warehouse end-use. Our costs and resources burden. Arkema appropriate risk management decisions’’ conclusion as discussed in section commented that no SNAP rule should (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). See July VI.A.6.b.i above was that these impose unreasonable burdens on the 2015 SNAP rule at 80 FR 42940. refrigerants pose overall greater risk U.S. economy. Arkema recommended Concerning NEDA/CAP’s comment than other alternatives. With respect to that EPA allow more time for transitions about the frequency of recent R-448A and R-449A in both end-uses, to avoid that outcome. rulemakings and listings, EPA notes that we noted in sections VI.A.6.c.i and Response: EPA understands that there we have the authority to change the VI.A.7.b.ii above that EPA is currently are challenges associated with status of a previously listed alternative evaluating those refrigerants for these transitioning substitutes, including costs and mentioned this as a possibility in end-uses but has not yet issued either a to manufacturers in redesigning the initial SNAP rulemaking. See the proposed decision or a Notice of equipment and making changes to preamble to the July 2015 rule at 80 FR Acceptability for these refrigerants in manufacturing facilities. As an initial 42939–40. Further, the CAP has guided these end-uses. matter, and as discussed more fully in EPA in our decision to issue more The reader is referred to sections section VII.A.3, under the SNAP criteria frequent listings as well as rulemakings VII.B.2 above and VII.D.3. As discussed for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), including changes of status. We also in response to other comments in consideration of cost is limited to cost note that some of our recent decisions section VII.D.3 below, energy efficiency of the substitute under review, and that mentioned by NEDA/CAP have is not a specific criterion under SNAP, consideration does not include the cost provided additional alternatives for both and indirect GHG emissions may vary of transition when a substitute is found new and retrofits of existing equipment, based on energy efficiency of the unacceptable. which would have no impact on the appliance. As discussed in response to The transition timelines in this final production of other alternatives or on comment in section VII.B.2 above, EPA rule are based on information existing equipment manufactured with initially contemplated considering concerning the availability of other alternatives. Concerning NEDA/ indirect climate impacts as part of our alternatives. While EPA does not CAP’s comment about the potential overall risk analysis in the initial SNAP consider the cost of transition in its impact of the rule on existing rule, but our experience has been that it analysis, EPA recognizes that later dates equipment, see the discussion in section is impractical to perform a detailed allow industry time to plan and to VII.A.1. analysis of indirect global warming spread out capital costs over longer time

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86872 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

periods. We have selected the change of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, 7% discount rate, and $58.8–$70.6 status dates, both as proposed and as Foams, and Fire Suppression.’’ 221 million, using a 3% discount rate.223 Total annualized compliance costs finalized, considering technical factors, 2. EPA’s Cost Analysis and Small across affected small businesses are such as time required for research and Business Impacts Screening Analysis development, time required for testing estimated at approximately $11.8 -$14.4 to meet industry and regulatory Comment: EPA received comments million at a 7% discount rate, or indicating that small businesses bear a standards, time to adjust their $11.5-$14.0 million at a 3% discount disproportionate share of the regulatory 224 manufacturing processes to safely rate. We updated both analyses based burden. NAFEM and Structural accommodate the use of other upon the regulatory options and change Composites and Compsys stated that the of status dates in the final rule. The substitutes, and supply of alternatives. proposed rule was overly burdensome changes in the final rule—especially Comment: NAFEM commented that if to small businesses. NAFEM comments with respect to compliance dates—do the proposed changes are finalized, the that if this rule is finalized as proposed, not change the cost impacts on rule will limit manufacturer the available supply of equipment businesses. The commenters did not productivity, threaten less profitable but models will decrease because point to any specific aspects of that important niche product lines that manufacturers will not be able to sell analysis that they believe are deficient. currently meet marketplace needs, and existing supply, will not have a Both the screening analysis for shift significant costs to end users of portfolio of products ready to sell that purposes of determining whether there commercial refrigeration equipment. comply with the new rule, and will was a SISNOSE and the analysis for NAFEM further commented that costs have to pause the current development purposes of E.O. 12866 were conducted and impacts for niche product lines, process for new projects already in the based on the best market and cost planning stage, further burdening small safety concerns, and evaluation, information available to the Agency. businesses. AHAM commented that the EPA also disagrees with the comment research, redesign, testing, EPA’s estimates for one time regarding the inability to sell existing implementation and training should be investments and annualized costs for supply as the status changes in the rule included in EPA’s revised analyses. facility conversion were ‘‘grossly’’ relate to new manufacturing and do not Structural Composites and Compsys understated and EPA does not capture limit the sale of existing supply. comments that costs will dramatically the ‘‘full financial impact to Comment: Arkema commented that increase if alternatives fail and several manufacturers.’’ EPA underestimated the costs of the rounds of trials are required. Response: EPA disagrees with this NPRM. Arkema believes EPA’s cost Response: Although EPA did not comment. We prepared a preliminary estimates are unduly optimistic given consider the costs of transitioning to small business screening analysis all that must be done to redesign other alternatives in making the listing during the development of the proposed equipment. Arkema further commented decisions in this rulemaking, for rule. We have updated our small on three areas of economic analysis that informational purposes, we did prepare business screening analysis using the they state need to be addressed. First, change of status decisions and dates in Arkema stated that EPA does not a cost analysis and a small business the final rule and using detailed cost include the ‘‘wasted costs’’ incurred by impacts analysis for this rule for information provided by those manufacturers that have actually businesses that are directly regulated. commenters.222 In the analyses, EPA changed designs of their equipment to EPA recognizes that transitioning to recognized that some small businesses meet DOE standards, based on the other alternatives is likely to require may experience significant costs, but continued availability of existing SNAP capital costs and investments in concluded that the number of small substitutes, but that now may need to research, updated equipment, and their businesses that would experience change their designs again. Second, related financial impacts. However, significant costs was not substantial. A Arkema suggested that EPA should EPA’s cost analysis did not evaluate the Small Business Advocacy Panel is account for ‘‘economic effects’’ on U.S. share of costs likely to be borne by convened when a proposed rulemaking plants that produce HFC-134a and the consumers, since it is not clear what is expected to have a significant impact other HFCs and HFC blends whose proportion of cost impacts may be on a substantial number of small listing the Agency proposed to change. passed on to consumers, and further, entities, or ‘‘SISNOSE.’’ EPA’s Third, Arkema suggested that the such economic analyses typically look preliminary and final screening analyses economic analyses should disclose how at costs to the regulated community concluded that this rulemaking would EPA expects prices and availability to rather than indirect impacts on not pose a SISNOSE: Accordingly, we change once it eliminates competing consumers. NAFEM did not provide did not convene a Small Business products, including stimulation of specific cost or cost impact information Advocacy Panel. short-term demand for the HFCs and More broadly, for purposes of E.O. for niche users or specific information HFC blends whose listing the Agency 12866, we performed an analysis of the for profit losses that would have proposed to change, longer term costs of the proposed rule on all-sized increases in prices for the HFCs and allowed us to analyze the impacts for businesses and estimated the total HFC blends, and increased demand for niche product lines. In the cases where annualized upfront compliance costs to next-generation fluorinated products. commenters provided specific, detailed range from $59.2–$71.3 million, using a cost information, we used that 223 ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory information to revise the cost 221 ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP assumptions in our updated cost Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air analysis for this final rule. For Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. ICF Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. International. September, 2016. additional information on economic September, 2016. 224 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening analysis conducted for this rule, see the 222 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing supporting document ‘‘Cost Analysis for Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. ICF of High-GWP Alternatives used in Suppression. ICF International. September, 2016. International. September, 2016.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86873

Response: See response above and see with GWPs in the range of 600 to 1,400, Comment: UTC commented that the also section VII.B.1 of the preamble to the agency must consider the environmental analysis underlying this the July 2015 rule. availability of other alternatives that are rule is flawed, and that benefits should Comment: Structural Composites and safer overall in each end use. We be calculated based on a projection of Compsys generally agreed with the encourage the development of such state-by-state code adoption. economic impact of transitioning to an alternatives, and as technologies Response: EPA disagrees with this alternative, as outlined in EPA’s continue to evolve, the agency intends commenter. In our consultation with ‘‘Economic Impact Screening Analysis to continue to evaluate present and new stakeholders, we have frequently heard for Regulatory Changes to the Listing alternatives. that patchworks of local regulations Status of High-GWP Alternatives used Comment: Hudson encouraged EPA often make matters more difficult for in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, not to approve substitutes for retrofit businesses. This action will change the Foams, and Fire Suppression.’’ purposes unless they have a lower GWP status of certain substitutes in certain Response: EPA appreciates this and are more energy efficient than the end-uses uniformly across the country. comment. current chemical in that equipment. Hence our approach of calculating Comment: AHAM noted the Response: This action does not benefits assuming similar adoption rates anticipated development costs fluctuate approve substitutes for retrofit purposes. nationally is appropriate. It is true that some localities may implement depending on the transition deadline. 2. EPA’s Climate Benefits Analysis According to data collected by AHAM, regulations that nudge or force EPA’s proposed date of 2021 for new Comment: AHAM, FPA, Johnson businesses to transition faster than the household refrigerants has the highest Controls, NEDA/CAP, Flexible transition dates in this rule, just as some transition cost per company, while the Packaging Association, and Sub Zero businesses may make the decision to 2024 deadline proposed by industry Group stated that the environmental transition more quickly, but that simply allows companies adequate time to benefits of this action are small when means that the cumulative benefits structure costs over multiple years at compared with the total of the United estimated are conservative in this nearly half the cost. States’ GHG emissions or in comparison respect. Benefits in given years after the Response: The cost of transition to with the benefits of other EPA rules. transition dates would not be affected other alternatives is not a consideration Response: EPA disagrees with the by such early transitions. under the SNAP review criteria. See notion that the environmental benefits Comment: NAFEM requested that sections VI and VII.C for additional of this rule are ‘‘miniscule,’’ as one EPA conduct a study to determine the information on considerations of cost commenter said, or that the benefits to effect on the environment of this action under the SNAP program. With regard human health and the environment are using refrigerant escape estimates rather to AHAM’s analysis, it is not clear what too small to make this action than overall use of refrigerants in years AHAM considered. For example, worthwhile. While the Agency agrees various end-uses. we could not determine if AHAM that some other sectors, such as Response: EPA does consider the rates considered dates earlier than 2021 or electricity generation, currently emit at which substitutes leak or are limited their evaluation to 2021 and more GHGs than the sectors affected by otherwise emitted in its estimation of later dates. this rule, the estimated benefits of this environmental benefits. The Agency’s rule are significant. To place the Vintaging Model accounts for emissions D. Environmental Impacts of Status benefits in perspective, the 10–11 from use, servicing, and disposal of Changes MMTCO2eq of prevented emissions in equipment and materials as each year’s 1. General Comments 2030 are equivalent to the total energy worth, or ‘‘vintage,’’ of that equipment use of over one million homes, or goes through its life cycle. This model, Comment: UTC commented that EPA equivalent to taking well over two and the estimates of leak rates within it, should avoid utilizing specific GWP million cars off the road.225 Further, the is peer-reviewed and regularly updated. limits in this or subsequent problem of climate change is of the type 3. Energy Efficiency rulemakings. that is the result of many small acts of Response: EPA agrees with this pollution rather than one giant spill or Comment: Hudson and UTC both commenter, and notes that no SNAP other polluting event. It is the sum of all claim that the energy efficiency action has established a maximum GWP the small releases of gases that leads to implications of changes in refrigerant above which a substitute would be the problem, and to claim that should be considered, and Hudson unacceptable. EPA recognizes that individual sources of emissions should specifically suggests that finding different end-uses have different not be reduced because their alternatives acceptable for retrofit uses technical demands and available contributions, taken alone, are not as can lead to losses in efficiency. alternatives, and so has always sought to large as those of others would make Response: The SNAP regulations for determine which substitutes are safer control of the problem impossible. In review of substitutes include both a list overall in the intersection of each fact, due to the high GWPs of many of of ‘‘information required to be substitute and end-use. the gases affected by this rule, reducing submitted’’ (section 82.178) and Comment: NRDC and EIA expressed emission of HFCs is widely considered ‘‘criteria for review’’ of SNAP their support for the rule, encouraged low-hanging fruit in terms of the submissions (section 82.180). The list of similar actions be taken in other sectors efficiency of approaches to reduce GHG required information includes global and end-uses, and stated that promotion emissions.226 warming impacts and mentions changes of alternatives with lower GWPs than in energy efficiency as an example of those that are still acceptable is 225 EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies indirect contributions to global necessary. Calculator. Accessible at www.epa.gov/energy/ warming. The criteria for review do not Response: We appreciate the support greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. mention energy efficiency. While EPA of these commenters and their 226 UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in uses all information submitted to inform Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP concurrence in the importance of the Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document its general understanding of the benefits of this rule. Regarding requests is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/ substitute, the end-use, and the sector, for finding unacceptable substitutes pdf/HFC_report.pdf. the Agency does not use all the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86874 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

information as part of its comparative processing and dispensing equipment, 0118. NAFEM indicated that it would be assessment to support listing decisions. as an equipment manufacturer burdensome for manufacturers using R- As EPA previously stated, ‘‘[w]e note indicated, there are not applicable DOE 404A for medium temperature that we do not have a practice in the energy conservation standards. applications to transition to R-450A, for SNAP program of including energy example, given that R-450A ‘‘was E. Interactions With Other Rules efficiency in the overall risk analysis. designed to replace R-134A and has We do, however, consider issues such as Comment: CPI and BASF stated that significantly different performance technical needs for energy efficiency there needs to be an alignment between characteristics when compared to R- (e.g., to meet DOE standards) in EPA and the Canadian regulatory 404A.’’ NAFEM stated that R-450A is a determining whether alternatives are framework for HFC emissions. Both low pressure gas compared to the R- ‘available’ ’’ (80 FR 42921; July 20, organizations encouraged EPA to work 404A, which is a medium-pressure gas, 2015). with Environment and Climate Change and cited technical challenges with The Agency agrees with the Canada (ECCC) to align regulatory transitioning to R-450A would require commenters that energy efficiency can controls under development to limit redesign of current systems and have significant impacts on the GHG HFC emissions from foam products that regulatory testing. These factors, emissions. However, we disagree that impact similar end-uses. The NAFEM stated, would reduce this action will have unintended commenters stated that a consistent productivity of the equipment, increase detrimental effects on energy efficiency. approach would reduce confusion in the manufacturing costs, and threaten As described in the July 2015 rule (80 marketplace and facilitate compliance market supply of medium temperature FR 42902), the energy efficiency with any use restrictions. equipment. Conversely, NAFEM believe actually achieved will depend on both Response: The regulatory frameworks the use of R-448A and R-449A would the refrigerant used and the design and and decisions of the U.S. and other only require valve adjustments in settings of the equipment. It is countries may vary due to differences in current system design, reduce GWP by impractical for EPA to evaluate all the statutes on which the regulations are 2⁄3, and would require about 10 percent possible equipment design and based as well as public input and other effort for manufacturers to implement refrigerant combinations. As part of its factors. While EPA agrees that certain when compared to R-450A. In support consideration of whether available countries, such as Canada, look to the of their argument for the acceptable alternatives exist in particular end-uses, work already done in the United States listing of R-448A and R-449A for SNAP considers as part of its evaluation and some similarities may result, each medium temperature equipment, whether use of potential alternatives is country’s regulations are based on its NAFEM also stated that stand-alone feasible. For example, if use of a domestic statutes and regulatory equipment has lower leak rates and particular alternative made it impossible processes. ECCC proposals to date have refrigerant charge than remote systems. for end users to comply with DOE considered EPA’s rules,227 and EPA Response: These comments go beyond energy conservation standards, that appreciates the value of consistency the scope of the current rulemaking as chemical would not be considered a where practicable. they concern end-uses and/or truly available substitute, and this substitutes not addressed in this action. would be considered in decisions on the F. Other Suggestions or Requests EPA appreciates receiving this status of other alternatives in that end- Comment: Zero Zone recommended information and will consider the use. In fact, many substitutes that that EPA add R-448A and R-449A to the comments as it evaluates possible future remain acceptable can lead to better list of acceptable alternatives for stand- actions. energy efficiency in that end-use than alone equipment. NAFEM commented Comment: While CARB supported the alternatives that are having their that there are no acceptable alternatives EPA’s efforts to change the status of status changed in this rule. for R-404A, other than propane, and certain high-GWP alternatives for use in Comment: For new cold storage recommended that EPA add R-448A and several end-uses, the agency encouraged warehouses, Daikin recommended that R-449A to the list of acceptable EPA to list additional high-GWP R-410A remain acceptable in direct alternatives for medium temperature refrigerants as unacceptable in the expansion systems ‘‘in order to maintain stand-alone equipment. NAFEM stated refrigeration and AC sector and work the energy efficiency and safety of Cold that ‘‘R-448A and 449A have lower with refrigerant safety standards Storage Warehouses.’’ They provided an GWPs and deliver fewer emissions than committees, such as ASHRAE and UL, explanation of why R-410A is more 404A, and in most cases, these to accelerate the transition to lower- energy efficient than R-404A. Arguing refrigerants can be used as a drop in GWP refrigerants. CARB also stated that that we should not change the status of replacement for 404A.’’ NAFEM the proposed rule is a valuable early R-407A and R-407B, and should find R- commented that the same public health action item that will assist in 448A and R-449A acceptable, for both arguments that the EPA cited in developing additional HFC reduction cold storage warehouses and for deeming R-450A and similar refrigerants measures in their SLCP Reduction refrigerated food processing and as acceptable for medium temperature Strategy that they plan to finalize in the dispensing equipment, AHRI stated stand-alone (retail food refrigeration) fall of 2016. without identifying any specific equipment should also apply to R-448A Response: EPA appreciates receiving substitutes that ‘‘[s]ome of the SNAP and R-449A. NAFEM noted that EPA this information and will consider the listed low-GWP refrigerants in this performed assessments to examine the comments as it evaluates possible future application will result in less efficient health and environmental risks of R- actions. EPA is committed to its products.’’ 450A in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– engagement with stakeholders in the Response: See responses above. For refrigerants industry, including new cold storage warehouses, we noted 227 See the ECCC’s permitting and reporting ASHRAE and UL. For example, EPA that some equipment could be subject to requirements for HFCs, which take effect in staff are currently members of ASHRAE, DOE energy conservation standards, and February 2017. Canada Gazette, June 2016. Ozone- and participate in relevant depleting Substances and Halocarbon Alternatives have considered this in determining a Regulations. Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/ subcommittees, such as ASHRAE reasonable yet expeditious change of rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-29/html/sor-dors137- Standing Standard Project Committees status date. For new refrigerated food eng.php. 15 and 15.2, some of the leading safety

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86875

standards for refrigerants in the United and benefits associated with this action. limited test-marketing), no change in States, and EPA staff regularly attend These are available in docket EPA–HQ– business practice would be required to industry conferences intended for the OAR–2015–0663 under the titles, meet the use conditions, resulting in no refrigerants industry. ‘‘Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program adverse impact compared to the absence Comment: The Alliance requested Status Change Rule’’ and ‘‘Cost Analysis of this rule. Provisions that allow that EPA disclose the timeline for for Regulatory Changes to the Listing venting of HC refrigerants in the uses of finalizing the Agency’s proposal to Status of High-GWP Alternatives used propane addressed by this rule would amend the section 608 refrigerant in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, reduce regulatory burden. We have management regulations (80 FR 69458; Foams, and Fire Suppression.’’ therefore concluded that this action November 9, 2015). The Alliance B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) would relieve regulatory burden for all indicated that its members are small entities that choose to use supportive of the proposal, but are This action does not impose any new propane as a refrigerant in the end-uses concerned that the Agency has not information collection burden under the in this listing. The use conditions of this finalized the rule, given that the public PRA. OMB has previously approved the rule apply to manufacturers of comment period closed on December 9, information collection requirements commercial ice machines, water coolers, 2015. They also noted that they contained in the existing regulations and very low temperature refrigeration submitted a petition on January 31, and has assigned OMB control number equipment that choose to use propane. 2060–0226. This rule contains no new 2015, requesting the proposed rule. The The requirements of this rule with Alliance believe that ‘‘promoting requirements for reporting or recordkeeping. respect to HFCs would impact small effective refrigerant management businesses that manufacture food practices, including recovery, C. Regulatory Flexibility Act processing and dispensing equipment, reclamation and reuse, is an important I certify that this action will not have household refrigerators and freezers, immediate element of reducing the GHG cold storage refrigeration systems, and footprint associated with the use of a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities polyurethane foams; operators of cold HFCs and will allow production to be storage refrigeration systems, including focused primarily for use in new under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this refrigerated warehouses, wholesalers, equipment.’’ and food manufacturers; and Response: EPA agrees with the action are small businesses. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this manufacture and use cold storage Alliance that the 608 rule will warehouses, and small businesses that strengthen refrigerant management rule on small entities, EPA evaluated small businesses as defined by the import products containing closed cell practices and reduce emissions of ODS phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, and gases with high GWPs. For Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The PU, and polystyrene foams information on the final 608 rule, see manufactured with HFC or HCFC foam the docket for the rulemaking (EPA– Agency has determined that about 90 small businesses could be subject to the blowing agents. The prohibition of HQ–OAR–2015–0453). methylene chloride as a foam blowing Comment: HSIA encouraged EPA to rulemaking, and roughly 76 percent of agent is not anticipated to impact small postpone the publication of the rule the small businesses subject to this businesses because this substance is not until relevant cases still pending, which rulemaking would be expected to expected to be used currently as a challenged the July 2015 rule, have been experience compliance costs of less than blowing agent. This rule’s provisions do settled. one percent of annual sales revenue. Response: EPA disagrees. We are Details of this analysis are presented in not create enforceable requirements for finalizing this rule in a timely fashion the document entitled, ‘‘Economic refrigeration and AC technicians, but in response to public comments to Impact Screening Analysis for they would indirectly affect technicians provide information to the regulated Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status servicing motor vehicle AC systems, community, some of whom have of High-GWP Alternatives used in certain types of retail food refrigeration requested expedited finalization. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, equipment, cold storage warehouses, Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners, Foams, and commercial AC equipment where VIII. Statutory and Executive Order and Fire Suppression.’’ 228 EPA the technician, rather than the Reviews evaluated the potential costs to small refrigeration or AC equipment owner, Additional information about these businesses associated with the rule. EPA purchases servicing equipment for statutes and Executive Orders can be estimates that the total annualized different refrigerants. EPA expects these found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- compliance costs for all small indirect impacts on technicians are regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. businesses would be approximately minimal, because the transitions to $11.8 to $14.4 million at a seven percent different refrigerants required by this A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory discount rate, or $11.5 to $14.0 million rule are already occurring due to Planning and Review and Executive at a three percent discount rate.229 This corporate social responsibility Order 13563: Improving Regulation and action allows equipment manufacturers initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum Regulatory Review the additional options of using propane, pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), This action is a significant regulatory HFO-1234yf, and 2-BTP in the specified and because many of the still-acceptable action that was submitted to the Office end-uses but does not mandate such alternatives are already used for these of Management and Budget (OMB) for use. Because these substitutes are not refrigeration or AC equipment types. review. It raises novel legal or policy yet being used in the United States for Further, most acceptable HFC issues arising out of legal mandates, the the end-uses (with the exception of refrigerant blends can be recovered and President’s priorities, or the principles serviced using equipment that service set forth in the Executive Order. Any 228 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening technicians already own. In some uses, changes made in response to OMB Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing there is no significant impact of the rule Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in recommendations have been Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire because the substitutes prohibited are documented in the docket. EPA Suppression. September, 2016. not widely used (e.g., use of prepared analyses of the potential costs 229 Ibid. perfluorocarbons for fire suppression,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86876 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

use of methylene chloride as a foam docket for this refrigerants. Specifically, these blowing agent in various types of foam). rulemaking.230 231 232 233 234 standards are: A significant portion of the businesses H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 1. Supplement SB to UL Standard regulated under this rule are not small Concerning Regulations That 399: Requirements for Drinking Water businesses (e.g., commercial AC Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Coolers Employing A Flammable manufacturers). We have therefore Distribution, or Use Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System concluded that this action will not have (7th Edition, August 22, 2008). This a significant impact on a significant This action is not a ‘‘significant document establishes requirements for number of small entities. energy action’’ because it is not likely to self-contained drinking water coolers, have a significant adverse effect on the including those supplying cold and/or D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act supply, distribution or use of energy. (UMRA) hot water and those employing For the end-uses that are related to flammable refrigerants. The standard is This action does not contain any energy effects such as refrigeration and available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/ unfunded mandate as described in AC, a number of alternatives are standard/?id=399, and may be UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does available to replace those refrigerants purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 not significantly or uniquely affect small that are listed as unacceptable in this Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; governments. The action imposes no action; many of the alternatives are as Email: [email protected]; enforceable duty on any state, local or energy efficient or more energy efficient Telephone: 1–888–853–3503 in the U.S. tribal governments or the private sector. than the substitutes being listed as or Canada (other countries dial +1–415– unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded 352–2168); Internet address: http:// E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism that this rule is not likely to have any ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm- adverse energy effects. This action does not have federalism 2000.com. The cost of UL 399 is $798 implications. It will not have substantial I. National Technology Transfer and for an electronic copy and $998 for direct effects on the states, on the Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription relationship between the national Part 51 service to the Standards Certification government and the states, or on the This action involves technical Customer Library (SCCL) that allows distribution of power and standards. EPA is using standards from unlimited access to their standards and responsibilities among the various UL in the use conditions for propane related documents. The cost of levels of government. EPA is aware that and standards from SAE for HFO- obtaining this standard is not a the California Air Resources Board has 1234yf. Additionally, EPA is significant financial burden for proposed regulation of a number of the incorporating by reference a standard equipment manufacturers and purchase substitutes and end-uses in this rule. from SAE that EPA already requires in is not required for those selling, F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation a use condition for HFC-152a in MVAC. installing and servicing the equipment. and Coordination With Indian Tribal These use conditions will ensure that Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL Governments these new substitutes for very low standard being incorporated by temperature refrigeration equipment, reference is reasonably available. This action does not have tribal commercial ice machines, and water 2. Supplement SB to UL Standard implications as specified in Executive coolers, do not present significantly 471: Requirements for Refrigerators and Order 13175. It will not have substantial greater risk to human health or the Freezers Employing A Flammable direct effects on tribal governments, on environment than other alternatives. Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System the relationship between the Federal EPA is incorporating by reference (10th Edition, November 24, 2010). This government and Indian tribes, or on the portions of current editions of the UL document establishes requirements for distribution of power and Standard 399, ‘‘Standard for Drinking- commercial refrigerators and freezers responsibilities between the Federal Water Coolers’’; UL Standard 471, that employ a refrigerant that has been government and Indian tribes, as ‘‘Standard for Commercial Refrigerators identified as having flammable specified in Executive Order 13175. and Freezers’’; and UL Standard 563, characteristics. The standard is available Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not ‘‘Standard for Ice Makers’’, which at http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/ apply to this action. includes requirements for the safe use of ?id=471&edition=10&doctype=ulstd, G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of and may be purchased by mail at: Children From Environmental Health 230 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning and Safety Risks Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@ Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1–888– This action is not subject to Executive Substitute: Propane (R-290). 231 ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other Order 13045 because it is not Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning countries dial +1–415–352–2168); economically significant as defined in Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Very Low Internet address: http:// Executive Order 12866, and because Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R- ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm- EPA does not believe the environmental 290) and Ethane (R-170). 232 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives 2000.com. The cost of UL 471 is $716 health or safety risks addressed by this Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning for an electronic copy and $897 for action present a disproportionate risk to Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription children. This rule restricts the use of Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). service to the SCCL that allows certain substitutes that have greater 233 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives unlimited access to their standards and overall risks for human health and the Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential related documents. The cost of environment, primarily due to their and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat obtaining this standard is not a high GWP. The reduction in GHG Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. significant financial burden for emissions would provide climate 234 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives equipment manufacturers and purchase benefits for all people, including Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and is not required for those selling, benefits for children and future Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- installing and servicing the equipment. generations. The risk screens are in the 1270). Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86877

standard being incorporated by Compression Systems (revised Conditioning Systems (revised February reference is reasonably available. December 19, 2011). This document 4, 2011). This standard describes 3. Supplement SA to UL Standard establishes safety standards for HFO- methods to understand the risks 563: Requirements for Ice Makers 1234yf MVAC systems that include associated with MVAC systems in all Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in unique fittings; a warning label aspects of a vehicle’s lifecycle including the Refrigeration System (8th Edition, indicating the refrigerant’s identity and design, production, assembly, operation July 31, 2009). This document that it is a flammable refrigerant; and and end of life. This standard is establishes requirements for automatic requirements for engineering design available at http://standards.sae.org/ ice makers, including unitary and strategies that include a high-pressure j2773_201102/ and may be purchased remote ice makers. The standard is compressor cutoff switch and pressure by mail at: SAE Customer Service, 400 available at http://ulstandards.ul.com/ relief devices. This standard is Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA standard/?id=563&edition=8&doctype= available at http://standards.sae.org/ 15096–0001; by telephone: 1–877–606– ulstd, and may be purchased by mail at: j639_201112/. 7323 in the United States or 724–776– COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, 2. SAE J1739 (adopted 2009): 4970 outside the United States or in Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@ Potential Failure Mode and Effects Canada. The cost of SAE J2773 is $74 for comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1–888– Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and an electronic or hardcopy. The cost of 853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other Potential Failure Mode and Effects obtaining this standard is not a countries dial +1–415–352–2168); Analysis in Manufacturing and significant financial burden for Internet address: http:// Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) manufacturers of MVAC systems and ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm- and Effects Analysis for Machinery purchase is not required for those 2000.com. The cost of UL 563 is $716 (Machinery FMEA) (revised January 1, selling, installing and servicing the for an electronic copy and $897 for 2009). This standard describes potential systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription FMEA in design and potential FMEA in the use of SAE J2773 is reasonably service to the SCCL that allows manufacturing and assembly processes. available. unlimited access to their standards and It requires manufacturers of MVAC related documents. The cost of systems and vehicles to conduct a J. Executive Order 12898: Federal obtaining this standard is not a FMEA and assists users in the Actions To Address Environmental significant financial burden for identification and mitigation of risk by Justice in Minority Populations and equipment manufacturers and purchase providing appropriate terms, Low-Income Populations is not required for those selling, requirements, ranking charts, and The human health or environmental installing and servicing the equipment. worksheets. This standard is available at risk addressed by this action will not Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL http://standards.sae.org/j1739_200901/. have potential disproportionately high standard being incorporated by 3. SAE J2844 (Revised October 2011): and adverse human health or reference is reasonably available. R-1234yf (HFO-1234yf) New Refrigerant environmental effects on minority, low- EPA is also incorporating by reference Purity and Container Requirements For income or indigenous populations. This the list of refrigerants that ASHRAE Use in Mobile Air-Conditioning Systems action’s health and risk assessments are designates as flammability Class 3 (revised October 2011). This standard contained in the comparisons of toxicity according to ASHRAE Standard 34– sets purity standards and describes for the various substitutes, as well as 2013, Designation and Safety container requirements, including risk screens for the substitutes that are Classification of Refrigerants, in the fittings for refrigerant cylinders. For listed as acceptable, subject to use unacceptability listing for certain highly connections with refrigerant containers conditions, or are newly listed as flammable refrigerants for use in for use in professional servicing, use unacceptable.235 236 237 238 239 The risk existing residential and light fittings must be consistent with SAE screens are in the docket for this commercial split AC systems. This J2844 (revised October 2011). This rulemaking. standard is available at https:// standard is available at http:// K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) www.ashrae.org/resources— standards.sae.org/j2844_201110/. publications/bookstore/standards-15— These standards may be purchased by This action is subject to the CRA, and 34 and may be purchased by mail at: mail at: SAE Customer Service, 400 EPA will submit a rule report to each 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA House of the Congress and to the 48108; by telephone: 1–800–527–4723 15096–0001; by telephone: 1–877–606– in the U.S. or Canada; Internet address: 7323 in the United States or 724–776– 235 ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ 4970 outside the United States or in Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning _ _ _ Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Water Coolers ashrae standards.html?ashrae auth Canada. The cost of SAE J639, SAE Substitute: Propane (R-290). token=. The cost of ASHRAE Standard J1739, and SAE 2844 is $74 each for an 236 ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives 34–2013 is $107 for an electronic or electronic or hardcopy. The cost of Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning hardcopy. The cost of obtaining this obtaining these standards is not a Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R- standard is not a significant financial significant financial burden for 290) and Ethane (R-170). burden for equipment manufacturers manufacturers of MVAC systems and 237 ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives and purchase is not required for those purchase is not required for those Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning selling, installing and servicing the selling, installing and servicing the Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes systems. Therefore, EPA concludes that Ice Machines Substitute: Propane (R-290). 238 ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives that the ASHRAE standard being the use of SAE J639, SAE J1739, and Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning incorporated by reference is reasonably SAE J2844 are reasonably available. Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential available. In addition, in today’s rule, we are and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat In addition, EPA is using standards incorporating by reference a standard Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. from SAE in the use conditions for that EPA already requires in a use 239 ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning HFO-1234yf. These standards are: condition for HFC-152a in MVAC: Sector Risk Screen on Substitutes in Chillers and 1. SAE J639: Safety Standards for 4. SAE J2773: Standard for Refrigerant Cold Storage Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- Motor Vehicle Refrigerant Vapor Risk Analysis for Mobile Air 1270).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86878 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Comptroller General of the United accessible at http://www.carrier.com/ Findings for Greenhouse Gases under States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ carrier/en/us/news/news-article/carrier_ Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. _ _ _ _ _ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). china showcases latest innovations at December, 2009. This document is china_refrigeration_expo.aspx. accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/ IX. References Clayton Corporation, 2014. Re: Proposed climatechange/Downloads/ SNAP Program Status Change Rule endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. Abt Associates, 2016. Review of propylene Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– EPA, 2009b. Risk Assessment: PMN 07–0601. acute toxicity for R-443A risk screen. 0198, comment submitted by Clayton Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/ Prepared for EPA. July 6, 2016. Corporation. October 20, 2014. Docket #!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR- A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2014. Response to number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198– 2008-0664-0036. Incompleteness Letter from A.S. Trust & 0133. EPA, 2013. Finding of Violation, issued to Holdings to EPA—Sent March 7, 2014 Clayton Corporation, 2015. Clayton Enviro-Safe Refrigerants, Inc. June, 2013. AHRI, 2012. ‘‘Test Report #1: System Drop- Corporation Meeting with EPA This document is accessible at: http:// in Test of R-410A Alternative Fluid Stratospheric Protection Division, www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ (ARM–32a, ARM–70a, DR-5, HPR1D, L– December 8, 2015. 2015-07/documents/mailfov_envirosafe_ 41a, L–41b, and R-32) in a 5–RT Air Climaveneta, 2015. ‘‘Against Global Warming 06112013.pdf. Cooled Water Chiller (Cooling Mode).’’ with the NEW TECS2 HFO Chillers.’’ EPA, 2015. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: November 26, 2012. This document is January 12, 2015. This document is Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/ accessible at http:// Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency App_Content/ahri/files/RESEARCH/ Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty _ _ www.climaveneta.com/EN/Media/Press- AREP Final Reports/AHRI%20Low- Releases/112.html. Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2. EPA– GWP%20AREP-Rpt-001.pdf. Cooling Post, 2014. Trane first with 1233zd 420–D–15–900. June 2015. Available at AHRI, 2014. Guideline N–2014 for chiller, June 30, 2014. This document is http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ Assignment of Refrigerant Container accessible at www.coolingpost.com/ documents/420d15900.pdf. Colors. This document is accessible world-news/trane-first-with-1233zd- EPA, 2016a. Climate Benefits of the SNAP online at http://www.ahrinet.org/App_ Program Status Change Rule. March, _ chiller/. Content/ahri/files/Guidelines/AHRI Cooling Post, 2015. ‘‘Blue Box offers R1234ze 2016. Guideline_N_2014.pdf. chiller option.’’ April 29, 2015. This EPA, 2016b. Tables of Alternatives for End- AHRI, 2016. ‘‘AHRI, ASHRAE, DOE Partner document is accessible at http:// Uses Considered in the Final Rule, to Fund Flammable Refrigerant www.coolingpost.com/world-news/blue- Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Research.’’ June 2, 2016. This document box-offers-r1234ze-chiller-option/. Listing Modifications for Certain is accessible at http://www.ahrinet.org/ Substitutes under the Significant New Cooling Post, 2015. ‘‘Chemours to build HFO- News-Events/News-and-Shipping- Alternatives Policy Program. September, 1336mzz plant,’’ November 17, 2015. Releases.aspx?A=1170. 2016. This document is accessible online at: AIRAH, 2013. Australian Institute of EPA, 2016c. A ‘‘Cool’’ Way to Combat http://www.coolingpost.com/world- Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Climate Change under the Montreal news/chemours-to-build-hfo-1336mzz- Heating. Safety Guide: Flammable Protocol. July 20, 2016. Available online Refrigerants. 2013. This document is plant/. at https://blog.epa.gov/blog/2016/07/a- accessible at: http://www.unep.fr/ DOE, 2014. Building Energy Codes Program. cool-way-to-combat-climate-change/. ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/7681- Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice e-FlammableRefrigerantsGuide Buildings. Available at: https:// for R-170 and R-290 in Very Low AIRAH.pdf. www.energycodes.gov/regulations/ Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015. Airgas, 2015. Safety Data Sheet for federal-building-standards. Last updated EU, 2014. Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of Propylene. February 13, 2014. the European Parliament and of the Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Doniger and Yurek, 2016. Doniger, David Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated Climate Change: Summaries of Recent (NRDC) and Stephen Yurek (AHRI), greenhouse gases and repealing Scientific and Papers. 2013. February 1, 2016. AHRI/NRDC Letter Regulation (EC) No 842/2006. Available ANSI/International Institute of Ammonia Regarding Chiller Actions Under SNAP. online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- Refrigeration (IIAR) Standard 2–2008 Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_ (Addendum B)—American National 0663–0013. .2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG. Standard for Equipment, Design, & DuPont, 2014. Re: Protection of Stratospheric FAA, 2002. Federal Aviation Administration Installation of Closed Circuit Ammonia Ozone: Change of Listing Status for (FAA) Minimum Performance Standard Mechanical Refrigerating Systems Certain Substitutes under the Significant for Hand-Held Extinguishers. This ASHRAE, 2013a. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard New Alternatives Policy Program. document is accessible at: http:// 34–2013: Designation and Safety Submitted by Michael Parr and Mack www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/01-37.pdf. Classification of Refrigerants. McFarland, DuPont. October 17, 2014. FAA, 2016. FAA Stratification and ASHRAE, 2013b. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– Localization of Halon 1211 Discharged in 15–2013: Safety Standard for 0198–0077. Occupied Aircraft Compartments (DOT/ Refrigeration Systems. Ecomall, 2015. Greenfreeze: A Revolution in FAA/TC–14/50). This document is ASHRAE, 2014. 2014 Handbook— Domestic Refrigeration. Accessible at: accessible at: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ Refrigeration. The American Society of http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/ pdf/TC-14-50.pdf. Heating, Refrigerating, and Air- greenfreeze.htm. Fomo, 2014. Comment Re: Proposed SNAP conditioning Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, Engie Refrigeration, 2016. ‘‘Quantum: Series Program Status Change Rule Docket ID Georgia, USA. ISBN 978–1–936504–71– and features of the energy-efficient No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198, 8; ISSN 1930–7195. chiller series.’’ This document is submitted by Dr. Thomas Fishback, Vice Berg, M., S.R. Muller, J. Muhlemann, A. accessible at https://www.engie- President, Research and Development, Wiedmer, and R.P. Schwarzenbach: refrigeration.de/export/sites/ Fomo Products, Inc. October 16, 2014. Concentrations and mass fluxes of cofelyrefrigeration/content/documents/ Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– chloroacetic acids and trifluoroacetic ENG/Produkte/Quantum/ENG_ 0198–0139. acid in rain and natural waters in Quantum_Folder.pdf. Fomo, 2015. ‘‘The Use of Solstice® Gas Switzerland. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify Blowing Agent (GBA) in Low-Pressure 2675–2683, 2000. the status under the Significant New Spray Polyurethane Foam Applications,’’ Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for Alternatives Policy Program, of certain Cline, Mojee and Bogdan, Mary, October, R-290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. high-GWP chemicals in various end- 2015. Polyurethane Industry Conference Carrier, 2016. ‘‘Carrier China Showcases uses. Submitted October 6, 2015. 2015. latest Innovations at China Refrigeration EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for FTOC, 2011. 2010 Report of the Rigid and Expo.’’ April 7, 2016. This document is Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Flexible Foams Technical Options

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86879

Committee. This document is accessible ICF, 2010b. Summary of Updates to the ICF, 2016i. Technical Support Document for at: http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_ Vintaging Model that Impacted HFO- Acceptability Listing of HFO-1234yf for Panels/TEAP/Reports/FTOC/FTOC- 1234yf Emissions Estimates. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning in 2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. ICF, 2010c. Revised Assessment of the Limited Heavy-Duty Applications. Geoclima, 2014. Geoclima Brochure. This Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the ICF, 2016j. Significant New Alternatives document is accessible at http:// Associated Production of TFA on Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and www.benndorf-hildebrand.eu/sites/ Aquatic Communities, Soil and Plants, Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen default/files/fabrikate/pdf/geoclima_ and Local Air Quality. on Substitutes as a Streaming Agent in broschure.pdf. ICF, 2010d. Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ Civil Aviation Applications. Substitute: Gradient, 2013. Additional Risk Assessment results on projected maximum TFA 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (2-BTP). of Alternative Refrigerant R-1234yf. rainwater concentrations and maximum ICF, 2016k. Significant New Alternatives Prepared by Gradient for SAE 8-hr ozone concentrations. Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and International Cooperative Research ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen Program 1234–4. July 24, 2013. The Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on on Substitutes for Total Flooding Executive Summary of this document is Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. Systems in Unoccupied Spaces. accessible at: http://www.sae.org/ February, 2014. Substitute: 2-bromo-3,3,3- standardsdev/tsb/cooperative/ ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for trifluoropropene (2-BTP). executivesummary.pdf. HCFC-22 in Residential and Light ICF, 2016l. Additional Follow-on Assessment Honeywell, 2014. Comments on Proposed Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Pumps; Substitute: Propane (R-290). Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for Concentrations. September, 2016. Change of Listing Status for Certain HCFC-22 in Residential and Light ICF, 2016m. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Substitutes under the Significant New Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Chillers Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z)/ Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. Pumps; Substitute: R-441A. trans-1,2-dichloroethylene blend (74.7/ EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 0198). October 20, ICF, 2015. Market Characterization of the 25.3) (OpteonTM XP30). 2014. Docket number EPA–HQ–OAR– U.S. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning INCHEM, 1996. International Programme on 2014–0198–0170. Industry, U.S. Foams Industry, U.S. Chemical Safety. Environmental Health Honeywell, 2016. Comments on Proposed Aerosols Industry, and U.S. Commercial Criteria 164. Methylene chloride, second Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Refrigeration Industry. July, 2015. edition. World Health Organization, Change of Listing Status for Certain ICF, 2016a. Cost Analysis for Regulatory 1996. This document is accessible online Substitutes under the Significant New Changes to the Listing Status of High- at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration ehc/ehc/ehc164.htm. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663). Docket and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663– Suppression. September, 2016. Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 0086. ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Working Group I to the Fourth Hossaini, et al., 2015. R. Hossaini, M. P. Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Assessment Report of the Chipperfield, S. A. Montzka, A. Rap, S. Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Dhomse, W. Feng. Efficiency of short- used in Refrigeration and Air Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. lived halogens at influencing climate Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. through depletion of stratospheric ozone. Suppression. September, 2016. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Nature Geoscience, February 16, 2015. ICF, 2016c. Significant New Alternatives Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, This document is accessible online at Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air United Kingdom and New York, NY, http://DOI:10.1038/ngeo2363. Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on USA. This document is accessible at: HVACNews, 2016. ‘‘Opteon Refrigerants Substitutes in Water Coolers Substitute: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ Increasingly Selected by Leading Global Propane (R-290). ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. OEMs.’’ January 25, 2016. http:// ICF, 2016d. Significant New Alternatives IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System hvacnews.com/2016/01/25/opteon- Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. refrigerants-increasingly-selected-by- Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, leading-global-oems/. Substitutes in Very Low Temperature H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate ICCT, 2015. International Council on Clean Refrigeration Substitute: Propane (R-290) Change 2013: The Physical Science Transportation: Regulatory and Ethane (R-170). Basis. Contribution of Working Group I Considerations for Advancing ICF, 2016e. Significant New Alternatives to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Commercial Pickup and Van Efficiency Policy Program: Refrigeration and Air Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Technology in the United States. Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Available online at: http:// Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. www.theicct.org/us-commercial-pickups- Substitute: Propane (R-290). Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and vans-efficiency-technology. ICF, 2016f. Significant New Alternatives P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge ICF, 2008. Air-Conditioning Refrigerant Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air University Press, Cambridge, United Charge Size to Passenger Compartment Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This Volume Ratio Analysis. Confidential Substitutes in Residential and Light document is accessible at: http:// Memorandum Prepared for the U.S. Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Pumps. Substitute: R-443A. IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: ICF, 2009a. Revised Final Draft Assessment ICF, 2016g. Significant New Alternatives Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf Policy Program. Refrigeration and Air Global Climate System: Issues Related to and the Associated Production of TFA Conditioning Sector Risk Screen on Hydrofluorocarbons and on Aquatic Communities and Local Air Substitutes in Chillers and Cold Storage Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, Quality. Warehouses. Substitute: Propylene (R- New York. This document is accessible ICF, 2009b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 1270) at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special- CFC–12 in Motor Vehicle Air ICF, 2016h. Market Characterization for Fire reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf. Conditioning: Substitute: HFO-1234yf. Suppression, Comfort Cooling, Cold JARN, 2015a. First Carrier AquaForce This document is accessible at: http:// Storage, Refrigerated Food Processing Chillers using HFO-1234ze, July 30, www.regulations.gov/ and Dispensing Equipment, and 2015. This document is accessible at: #!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR- Household Refrigeration Industries in http://www.ejarn.com/news.aspx? 2008-0664-0038. the United States. Prepared for the U.S. ID=35619. ICF, 2010a. Summary of HFO-1234yf Environmental Protection Agency. JARN, 2015b. Trane Exhibits First Air-cooled Emissions Assumptions. February, 2016. Chiller with Climate-friendly Refrigerant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86880 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

DR-55, September 21, 2015. This Presented by Brian Fricke, Oak Ridge chillers/and http://www.smardt.com/ document is accessible at: National Laboratory. November 17, 2015. docs/SMARDT%20BROCHURE www.ejarn.com/news.aspx?ID=36282. Pandian et al., 1998. ‘‘Correcting Errors in the %20ENGLISH%20JAN%202016.pdf. Johnson Controls, 2016. ‘‘Johnson Controls Nationwide Data Base of Residential Air Star Refrigeration, 2012. ‘‘Star’s Three-Way Advances Environmental Sustainability Exchange Rates.’’ Journal of Exposure Development Test for R-1234ze(E).’’ July with Chiller Platforms Compatible with Analysis and Environmental 2012. This document is accessible at Low GWP Refrigerants.’’ January 20, Epidemiology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 577–585, http://www.star-ref.co.uk/star/images/ 2016. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/ 1998. stories/pdf/Case%20Study%20No%2082 media-center/news/press-releases/2016/ Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric %20-%20Refrigerant%20R-1234ze.pdf. 01/20/advanced-environmental- Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion TEAP, 2013. Report of the Technology and sustainability-with-chiller-platforms- Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: compatible-with-low-gwp-refrigerants. trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Kazil et al., 2014. Deposition and rainwater dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional Additional Information on Alternatives concentrations of trifluoroacetic acid in model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867– to ODS. September, 2013. This document the United States from the use of HFO- 10874, 2010. is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/ 1234yf. JGR-Atmospheres, 2014. Patten et al., 2012. Correction to ‘‘OH Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ Luecken et al., 2009. Ozone and TFA impacts reaction rate constant, IR absorption TEAP_Reports/TEAP_TaskForce in North America from degradation of 2, spectrum, ozone depletion potentials %20XXIV–7-September2013.pdf. 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), and global warming potentials of 2- TEAP, 2015. 2014 Assessment Report of the a potential greenhouse gas replacement. bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene,’’ J. Technology and Economic Assessment Environmental Science & Technology Geophys. Res., 117, D22301, Panel. This document is accessible at: 2009. The document is accessible at: doi:10.1029/2012JD019051. http://conf.montreal-protocol.org/ http://www.researchgate.net/profile/ RAC, 2012. ‘‘Klima-Therm discusses world’s meeting/oewg/oewg-36/presession/ _ Robert Waterland/publication/ first HFO chiller for Waitrose.’’ January Background%20Documents%20are ______40481734 Ozone and TFA impacts in 10, 2012. This document is accessible %20available%20in%20English _ _ _ _ _ North America from degradation of online at http://www.racplus.com/ %20only/TEAP_Assessment_report_ 2333-Tetrafluoropropene_(HFO-1234yf)_ _ _ _ _ features/klima-therm-discusses-worlds- 2014.pdf. a potential greenhouse gas first-hfo-chiller-for-waitrose/ TEAP/HTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the replacement/links/00b7d514ca 8624689.article. Halons Technical Options Committee 9595bf5e000000.pdf. RAC, 2016. ‘‘Carrier opts for HFO 1234ze (Vol. 1). This document is accessible at: Kontomaris et. al., 2010. ‘‘A Non-Flammable, refrigerants for global chiller range.’’ http://ozone.unep.org/en/Assessment_ Reduced GWP, HFC-134a Replacement February 26, 2016. This document is Panels/TEAP/Reports/HTOC/HTOC in Centrifugal Chillers: DR-11.’’ This accessible at http://www.racplus.com/ %202014%20Assessment document is accessible at http://docs.lib. news/carrier-opts-for-hfo-1234ze- %20Report.pdf. purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= refrigerants-for-global-chiller-range/ The NEWS, 2014. ‘‘Airedale Chiller with 2021&context=iracc. 10003440.article?blocktitle= Low-GWP HFO Refrigerant to Cool New Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, News&contentID=15773. John Lewis Store.’’ June 9, 2014. This September, 2013. EPA SNAP Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. document is accessible at http:// Submittal—Revision to Extend R-290 www.achrnews.com/articles/126828- Use to Commercial Ice Machines, Jensen, S. Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. and S. Solomon. 1994. Do airedale-chiller-with-low-gwp-hfo- Manitowoc, 2016. ‘‘Icecore Remote hydrofluorocarbons destroy stratospheric refrigerant-to-cool-new-john-lewis-store. Refrigeration Units.’’ This document is ozone? Science 263: 71–75. Available Trane, 2016. ‘‘Trane Announces Significant accessible at http://www.manitowoc online at http://www.ciesin.org/docs/ Centrifugal Chiller Line Expansion and beverage.com/asset/?id=bkbkf®ions= 011-552/011-552.html. Services for the United States and us&prefLang=en. RC Group, 2016. ‘‘Unico Turbo Air Cooled Canada.’’ June 15, 2016. This document McDonald’s 2004. ‘‘Cool: The world’s first Liquid Chiller.’’ This document is is accessible at http://www.trane.com/ HFC-free McDonald’s restaurant.’’ This accessible at http://www.rcgroup.it/EN/ commercial/north-america/us/en/about- document is accessible at http:// Prodotti/?idP=1563. us/newsroom/press-releases/centrifugal- www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/ RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the chiller-line-expansion.html. mmcfiles/4256-e-mcdonalds.pdf. Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat The White House, 2013. President’s Climate MHI, 2015. ‘‘MHI Develops ‘ETI–Z Series’ of Pumps Technical Options Committee. Action Plan. This document is accessible Next-generation Centrifugal Chiller— This document is accessible at: http:// at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ Adopt New Non-ozone-depleting ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/ default/files/image/president27sclimate Refrigeration to Minimize Greenhouse documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report- actionplan.pdf. Gas Emissions.’’ June 10, 2015. This 2014.pdf. The White House, 2015. Fact Sheet: Obama document is accessible at www.mhi- SAE, 2013. SAE International Cooperative Administration and Private-Sector global.com/news/story/1506101900. Research Project CRP1234–4 on R-1234yf Leaders Announce Ambitious html. Safety, Finishes Work and Presents Commitments and Robust Progress to Mitsubishi, 2012. ‘‘Deployment to New Conclusions. This document is Address Potent Greenhouse Gases, Series of ‘eco Turbo chiller ETI series.’’’ accessible at: http://www.sae.org/ October 15, 2015. Accessible at https:// This document is accessible at http:// servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE= www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/ PressReleases&PAGE= 2015/10/15/fact-sheet-obama- 491/491058.pdf. showRelease&RELEASE_ID=2146. administration-and-private-sector- Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Sleasman, K. and Biggs, M., 2015. Lessons leaders-announce. Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts. learned from the Federal Partners Trane, 2015. Trane® SintesisTM Air-cooled ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This Workgroup on Spray Polyurethane Foam Chillers. This document is accessible at: document is accessible at: ftp:// (SPF), presented at the Center for the http://www.trane.com/content/dam/ ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/ Polyurethanes Industry Technical Trane/Commercial/global/products- 2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf. Conference, October, 2015. systems/equipment/chillers/air-cooled/ NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of SMARDT, 2016. ‘‘Revolutionary Energy TRANE_Sintesis_Brochure.pdf. Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Savings for the Built Environment’’, UL, 2004. Standard 711—Rating and Testing Section 612 (Significant New ‘‘Trendsetting Technologies for of Fire Extinguishers. This document is Alternatives Policy). Submitted October Centrifugal Chillers.’’ These documents accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ 6, 2015. are available at http:// standard/?id=711_7. ORNL, 2015. ORNL’s JUMP Challenge: JUMP climatecontrolme.com/2013/12/ UL, 2005. Standard 2129—Halocarbon Clean in to Advance Tech Innovation! trendsetting-technologies-for-centrifugal- Agent Fire Extinguishers. This document

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86881

is accessible at: http:// Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, Subpart F—Recycling and Emissions _ ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=2129 M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009). Reduction 2. ‘‘The large contribution of projected HFC UL, 2008. Standard 399—Standard for emissions to future climate forcing.’’ ■ Drinking-Water Coolers. 7th edition. Proceedings of the National Academy of 2. Amend § 82.154 by revising the Supplement SB: Requirements for Room Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. introductory text to paragraph (a)(1) and Air Conditioners Employing a Wallington, T. J., J. J. Orlando and G. S. paragraph (a)(1)(viii) to read as follows: Flammable Refrigerant in the Tyndall, O. J. Nielsen: Comment on Refrigerating System. Underwriters ‘‘Airborne Trifluoroacetic Acid and Its § 82.154 Prohibitions. Laboratories, Inc. August 22, 2008.A Fraction from the Degradation of HFC- (a) * * * (1) No person maintaining, summary of this document is accessible 134a in Beijing, China’’, Environ. Sci. at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/ Technol., 48, 9948–9948, DOI: 10.1021/ servicing, repairing, or disposing of an ?id=399_7. es502485w, 2014. appliance or industrial process UL, 2009. Standard 563—Standard for Ice Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. refrigeration may knowingly vent or Makers. 8th edition. Supplement SA: ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s otherwise release into the environment Requirements for Refrigerators and Potential Impact on Atmospheric any refrigerant from such appliances. Freezers Employing a Flammable Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric Notwithstanding any other provision of Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, this subpart, the following substitutes in Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. July 31, IL. September 26, 2011. the following end-uses are exempt from 2009.A summary of this document is Wickham, 2002. Status of Industry Efforts to accessible at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/ Replace Halon Fire Extinguishing this prohibition and from the standard/?id=563. Agents. March, 2002. requirements of this subpart: UL, 2010. Standard 471—Standard for Wu, J., J. Martin, Z. Zhai, K. Lu, L. Li, X. * * * * * Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. Fang, H. Jin, J. Hu, and J. Zhang. (viii) Propane (R-290) in retail food 10th edition. Supplement SB: Airborne trifluoroacetic acid and its Requirements for Refrigerators and fraction from the degradation of HFC- refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone Freezers Employing a Flammable 134a in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci. units only); household refrigerators, Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Technol., 10.1021/es4050264, 2014. freezers, and combination refrigerators Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Zhai Z., J. Wu, X. Hu, L. Li, L. Guo, B. Zhang, and freezers; self-contained room air November 24, 2010.A summary of this J. Hu, and J. Zhang: A 17-fold increase conditioners for residential and light document is accessible at: http:// of trifluoroacetic acid in landscape _ commercial air-conditioning and heat ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=471 waters of Beijing, China during the last pumps; vending machines; and effective 10. decade, Chemosphere, 129, 110–117, January 3, 2017, self-contained UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in 2015. Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, commercial ice machines, very low A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 temperature refrigeration equipment, 2011. This document is accessible at: Environmental protection, and water coolers; www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/ * * * * * _ Administrative practice and procedure, HFC report.pdf. Air pollution control, Incorporation by UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and reference, Recycling, Reporting and Subpart G—Significant New Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Alternatives Policy Program Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, recordkeeping requirements, Additional Information on Alternatives Stratospheric ozone layer. ■ 3. In appendix B to subpart G of part to ODS. September, 2013. Dated: September 26, 2016. UTC, 2016. Comments on Proposed Rule: 82, the table titled ‘‘Refrigerants— Gina McCarthy, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions’’ Change of Listing Status for Certain Administrator. is amended by: Substitutes under the Significant New For the reasons set forth in the ■ a. Revising the fifth entry; Alternatives Policy Program (Docket no. preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 82 ■ EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663). Docket as follows: b. Adding three entries at the end; and number EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0663– ■ c. Revising the NOTE following 0069. PART 82—PROTECTION OF footnote 3. Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, STRATOSPHERIC OZONE M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2015). The revisions and additions to read as ‘‘Future atmospheric abundances and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 follows: climate forcings from scenarios of global and regional hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) continues to read as follows: Appendix B to Subpart G of Part 82— emissions.’’ Atmospheric Environment Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 123: 200–209. 7671q. and Unacceptable Substitutes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86882 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments

******* CFC–12 Automobile R-152a as a sub- Acceptable subject to Engineering strategies and/or devices shall Additional training for service technicians Motor Vehicle Air stitute for CFC–12. use conditions. be incorporated into the system such that recommended. Conditioning (New foreseeable leaks into the passenger Manufacturers should conduct and keep on equipment only). compartment do not result in R-152a con- file failure mode and Effect Analysis centrations of 3.7% v/v or above in any (FMEA) on the MVAC as stated in SAE part of the free space1inside the pas- J1739. senger compartment for more than 15 seconds when the car ignition is on. Manufacturers must adhere to all the safety requirements listed in the Society of Auto- motive Engineers (SAE) Standard J639 (adopted 2011), including unique fittings and a flammable refrigerant warning label as well as SAE Standard J2773 (adopted February 2011).

******* Motor vehicle air con- HFO-1234yf ...... Acceptable subject to As of January 3, 2017: ...... Additional training for service technicians ditioning (newly use conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must recommended. manufactured me- adhere to all of the safety require- HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- dium-duty pas- ments of SAE J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS. Reg. No. senger vehicles). including requirements for a flam- 754–12–1). mable refrigerant warning label, high- pressure compressor cutoff switch and pressure relief devices, and unique fittings. For connections with refrigerant containers for use in pro- fessional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (re- vised October 2011). (2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for at least three years from the date of creation. Motor vehicle air con- HFO-1234yf ...... Acceptable subject to As of January 3, 2017: ...... Additional training for service technicians ditioning (newly use conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must recommended. manufactured adhere to all of the safety require- HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- heavy-duty pickup ments of SAE J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS No 754–12– trucks). including requirements for a flam- 1). mable refrigerant warning label, high- pressure compressor cutoff switch and pressure relief devices, and unique fittings. For connections with refrigerant containers for use in pro- fessional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (re- vised October 2011). (2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for at least three years from the date of creation. Motor vehicle air con- HFO-1234yf ...... Acceptable subject to As of January 3, 2017: ...... Additional training for service technicians ditioning (newly use conditions. (1) HFO-1234yf MVAC systems must recommended. manufactured com- adhere to all of the safety require- HFO-1234yf is also known as 2,3,3,3- plete heavy-duty ments of SAE J639 (adopted 2011), tetrafluoro-prop-1-ene (CAS No 754–12– vans only). including requirements for a flam- 1). mable refrigerant warning label, high- HFO-1234yf is acceptable for complete pressure compressor cutoff switch heavy-duty vans. Complete heavy-duty and pressure relief devices, and vans are not altered by a secondary or unique fittings. For connections with tertiary manufacturer. refrigerant containers for use in pro- fessional servicing, use fittings must be consistent with SAE J2844 (re- vised October 2011). (2) Manufacturers must conduct Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) as provided in SAE J1739 (adopted 2009). Manufacturers must keep the FMEA on file for at least three years from the date of creation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86883

* * * * * Canada); Internet address: http:// code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_ store.sae.org/dlabout.htm. You may inspect a locations.html. Note 1: The Director of the Federal Register copy at U.S. EPA’s Air Docket; EPA West approves the incorporation by reference of * * * * * the material under ‘‘Conditions’’ in the table Building, Room 3334; 1301 Constitution Ave. ■ ‘‘REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT NW., Washington, DC, or at the National 4. Appendix K to subpart G of part 82 TO USE CONDITIONS’’ (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and Archives and Records Administration is revised to read as follows: (NARA). For questions regarding access to 1 CFR part 51). You may obtain a copy from Appendix K to Subpart G of Part 82— SAE Customer Service, 400 Commonwealth these standards, the telephone number of Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096–0001 USA; EPA’s Air Docket is 202–566–1742. For Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions email: [email protected]; Telephone: information on the availability of this and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in 1–877–606–7323 (U.S. and Canada only) or material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go the July 22, 2002, Final Rule Effective 1–724–776–4970 (outside the U.S. and to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ August 21, 2002

FOAM BLOWING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

Replacements for HCFC-141b in the following rigid HCFC-22, HCFC-142b Unacceptable Closed cell foam prod- Alternatives exist with polyurethane/polyisocyanurate applications:. and blends thereof. ucts and products containing lower or zero-ODP. —Boardstock closed cell foams manufactured —Appliance with these substitutes on or before —Spray December 1, 2017 may be used after that date. All foam end-uses ...... HCFC-124 ...... Unacceptable Closed cell foam prod- Alternatives exist with ucts and products containing lower or zero-ODP. closed cell foams manufactured with this substitute on or before December 1, 2017 may be used after that date.

■ 5. Appendix M to subpart G of part 82 Appendix M to Subpart G— is revised to read as follows: Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the September 30, 2004 Final Rule, Effective November 29, 2004

FOAM BLOWING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments

All foam end-uses: HCFC-141b ...... Unacceptable Closed cell foam Alternatives exist with —rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated products and products containing lower or zero-ODP. boardstock closed cell foams manufactured —rigid polyurethane appliance with this substitute on or before —rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigera- December 1, 2017 may be used tion, and sandwich panels after that date. —rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams —polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet —phenolic insulation board and bunstock —flexible polyurethane —polystyrene extruded sheet —Except for: 1 —space vehicle —nuclear —defense —research and development for foreign customers 1 Exemptions for specific applications are identified in the list of acceptable substitutes, which is available on the SNAP Web site at: https:// www.epa.gov/snap/foam-blowing-agents.

■ 6. Appendix O to subpart G of part 82 Appendix O to Subpart G of Part 82— is amended by revising the table titled Substitutes Listed in the September 27, ‘‘Fire Suppression and Explosion 2006 Final Rule, Effective November 27, Protection Sector-Total Flooding 2006 Substitutes-Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions’’ to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86884 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION SECTOR—TOTAL FLOODING SUBSTITUTES—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Conditions Further information

Total flooding ...... Gelled Halocarbon/ Acceptable subject to Use of whichever hydrofluorocarbon gas Use of this agent should be in accordance Dry Chemical Sus- use conditions. (HFC-125, HFC-227ea, or HFC-236fa) is with the safety guidelines in the latest edi- pension (Envirogel) employed in the formulation must be in tion of the NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean with sodium bicar- accordance with all requirements for ac- Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, for bonate additive. ceptability (i.e., narrowed use limits) of whichever hydrofluorocarbon gas is em- that HFC under EPA’s SNAP program. ployed, and the latest edition of the NFPA 2010 standard for Aerosol Extinguishing Systems. Sodium bicarbonate release in all settings should be targeted so that increased blood pH level would not adversely affect exposed individuals. Users should provide special training, in- cluding the potential hazards associated with the use of the HFC agent and so- dium bicarbonate, to individuals required to be in environments protected by Envirogel with sodium bicarbonate addi- tive extinguishing systems. Each extinguisher should be clearly labeled with the potential hazards from use and safe handling procedures. See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Total flooding ...... Powdered Aerosol E Acceptable subject to For use only in normally unoccupied areas .. Use of this agent should be in accordance (FirePro®). use conditions. with the safety guidelines in the latest edi- tion of the NFPA 2010 standard for Aer- osol Extinguishing Systems. For establishments manufacturing the agent or filling, installing, or servicing containers or systems to be used in total flooding ap- plications, EPA recommends the fol- lowing: —adequate ventilation should be in place to reduce airborne exposure to constituents of agent; —an eye wash fountain and quick drench facility should be close to the production area; —training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle con- tainers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent; —workers responsible for clean up should allow for maximum settling of all particulates before reentering area and wear appropriate protective equipment; and —all spills should be cleaned up imme- diately in accordance with good in- dustrial hygiene practices. See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Total flooding ...... Phosphorous Acceptable subject to For use only in aircraft engine nacelles ...... For establishments manufacturing the agent Tribromide (PBr3). use conditions. or filling, installing, or servicing containers or systems, EPA recommends the fol- lowing: —adequate ventilation should be in place and/or positive pressure, self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) should be worn; —training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle con- tainers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent; and —all spills should be cleaned up imme- diately in accordance with good in- dustrial hygiene practices. See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Additional comments: 1—Should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, Subpart L, Sections 1910.160 and 1910.162. 2—Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 3—Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 4—The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed. 5—EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protec- tion, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86885

■ 7. Appendix Q to subpart G of part 82 Appendix Q to Subpart G of Part 82— is revised to read as follows: Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the March 28, 2007 Final Rule, Effective May 29, 2007

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

—Rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration HCFC-22, HCFC-142b Unacceptable 1 ...... Alternatives exist with —Rigid polyurethane sandwich panels ...... as substitutes for Closed cell foam products and products con- lower or zero-ODP. —Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other HCFC-141b. taining closed cell foams manufactured foams. with these substitutes on or before Decem- ber 1, 2017 may be used after that date. —Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate HCFC-22, HCFC-142b Unacceptable 2 ...... Alternatives exist with laminated boardstock. as substitutes for Closed cell foam products and products con- lower or zero-ODP. —Rigid polyurethane appliance ...... CFCs. taining closed cell foams manufactured —Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial with these substitutes on or before Decem- refrigeration, and sandwich panels. ber 1, 2017 may be used after that date. —Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams. —Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet. —Phenolic insulation board and bunstock ...... —Flexible polyurethane ...... —Polystyrene extruded sheet ...... 1 For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 other than in marine applications, the unacceptability determination is effective on March 1, 2008; for existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as of November 4, 2005 in marine applications, including marine flotation foam, the unacceptability determination is effective on September 1, 2009. For an existing user of HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b that currently operates in only one facility that it does not own, and is scheduled to transition to a non-ODS, flammable alternative to coincide with a move to a new facility and installation of new process equipment that cannot be completed by March 1, 2008, the unacceptability determination is effective January 1, 2010. 2 For existing users of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet and the other foam end-uses, as of November 4, 2005, the unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010.

■ 8. Appendix U to subpart G of part 82 Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82— is amended by revising the tables titled Unacceptable Substitutes and ‘‘Foam Blowing Agents—Substitutes Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Listed in the July 20, 2015 Final Rule, Limits’’ and ‘‘Unacceptable Substitutes’’ Effective August 19, 2015 to read as follows: * * * * *

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Appliance. 245fa, HFC-365mfc Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Commercial Refrig- 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation eration and Sand- and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- wich Panels. Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86886 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Flexible Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation and blends thereof. its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2019, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Slabstock and 245fa, HFC-365mfc Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation Other. and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Rigid Polyurethane HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain and 245fa, HFC-365mfc Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation Polyisocyanurate and blends thereof. its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Laminated nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Boardstock. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Marine Flotation 245fa, HFC-365mfc Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation Foam. and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Sheet. 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86887

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2021, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Boardstock and Bil- 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation let. and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel B, and able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: Formacel Z-6. that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Integral Skin Poly- HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain urethane. 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Polyolefin ...... HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain 245fa, HFC-365mfc, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation and blends thereof; its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- Formacel TI, and nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should Formacel Z-6. able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates. Phenolic Insulation HFC-143a, HFC- Acceptable Subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2017, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain Board and 134a, HFC-245fa, Narrowed Use Lim- uary 1, 2022, in military applications and the results of their technical investigation Bunstock. HFC-365mfc, and its. until January 1, 2025, in space- and aero- of alternatives for the purpose of dem- blends thereof. nautics-related applications where reason- onstrating compliance. Information should able efforts have been made to ascertain include descriptions of: that other alternatives are not technically • Process or product in which the sub- feasible due to performance or safety re- stitute is needed; quirements. • Substitutes examined and rejected; Closed cell foam products and products • Reason for rejection of other alter- containing closed cell foams manufac- natives, e.g., performance, technical tured with these substitutes on or before or safety standards; and/or January 1, 2022, for military applications • Anticipated date other substitutes will or on and before January 1, 2025, in be available and projected time for space- and aeronautics-related applica- switching. tions, may be used after those dates.

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

All Foam Blowing End-uses .. HCFC-141b and blends thereof ...... Unacceptable effective September 18, HCFC-141b has an ozone depletion poten- 2015. Closed cell foam products and tial of 0.11 under the Montreal Protocol. products containing closed cell foams EPA previously found HCFC-141b unac- manufactured with these substitutes on ceptable in all foam blowing end-uses or before December 1, 2017 may be (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR used after that date. part 82). HCFC-141b has an ozone de- pletion potential (ODP) of 0.11. All Foam Blowing end-uses .. HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof Unacceptable effective September 18, Use or introduction into interstate com- 2015. Closed cell foam products and merce of virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC- products containing closed cell foams 142b for foam blowing is prohibited after manufactured with these substitutes on January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regula- or before December 1, 2017 may be tions at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A un- used after that date. less used, recovered, and recycled. These compounds have ODPs of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86888 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Flexible Polyurethane ...... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, ex- These foam blowing agents have global blends thereof. cept where allowed under a narrowed warming potentials (GWPs) ranging from use limit. 725 to 1,430. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment by the status change date. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. December 1, 2017 may be used after that date. Phenolic Insulation Board HFC-143a, HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs and Bunstock. 365mfc, and blends thereof. cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from 725 to 4,470. Other sub- use limit. stitutes will be available for this end-use Closed cell foam products and products with lower overall risk to human health containing closed cell foams manufac- and the environment by the status tured with these substitutes on or before change date. December 1, 2017 may be used after that date. Integral Skin Polyurethane .... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment by the status change date. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2019, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs Slabstock and Other. blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2019, may be used after that date. Rigid Polyurethane and HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2017, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs Polyisocyanurate Lami- blends thereof. cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from 725 to 1,430. Other sub- nated Boardstock. use limit. stitutes will be available for this end-use Closed cell foam products and products with lower overall risk to human health containing closed cell foams manufac- and the environment by the status tured with these substitutes on or before change date. December 1, 2017 may be used after that date. Rigid Polyurethane: Marine HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs Flotation Foam. blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. Rigid Polyurethane: Commer- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs cial Refrigeration and blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Sandwich Panels. Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. Rigid Polyurethane: Appli- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs ance. blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. Polystyrene: Extruded HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs Boardstock and Billet. blends thereof; Formacel TI, Formacel cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 140 to approxi- B, and Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2021, may be used after that date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86889

UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Polyolefin ...... HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs blends thereof; Formacel TI, and cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 370 to approxi- Formacel Z-6. use limit. mately 1,500. Other substitutes will be Closed cell foam products and products available for this end-use with lower containing closed cell foams manufac- overall risk to human health and the en- tured with these substitutes on or before vironment by the status change date. January 1, 2020, may be used after that date.

* * * * * Appendix V to Subpart G of Part 82— Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions ■ 9. Add appendix V to subpart G of and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in part 82 to read as follows: the December 1, 2016 Final Rule REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Commercial ice Propane (R-290) Acceptable, sub- As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR machines (self- ject to use con- This refrigerant may be used only in new equipment part 1910 must be followed, including contained) ditions. designed specifically and clearly identified for the those at 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable (new only). refrigerant—i.e., this refrigerant may not be used and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (stor- as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing age and handling of liquefied petroleum equipment. gases), 1910.157 (portable fire extin- This refrigerant may be used only in self-contained guishers), and 1910.1000 (toxic and haz- commercial ice machines that meet all require- ardous substances). ments listed in Supplement SA to UL 563.125 In Proper ventilation should be maintained at cases where this rule includes requirements more all times during the manufacture and stor- stringent than those in UL 563, the equipment age of equipment containing hydrocarbon must meet the requirements of the final rule in refrigerants through adherence to good place of the requirements in the UL Standard. manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR The charge size must not exceed 150g (5.29 oz) in 1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air each refrigerant circuit of a commercial ice ma- surrounding the equipment rise above chine. one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, As provided in clauses SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 of UL the space should be evacuated and re- 563, the following markings must be attached at entry should occur only after the space the locations provided and must be permanent: has been properly ventilated. (a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Technicians and equipment manufacturers Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices should wear appropriate personal protec- To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrig- tive equipment, including chemical gog- erant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on gles and protective gloves, when handling or near any evaporators that can be contacted by propane. Special care should be taken to the consumer. avoid contact with the skin since propane, (b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable like many refrigerants, can cause freeze Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained burns on the skin. Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near the should be kept nearby. machine compartment. Technicians should only use spark-proof (c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable tools when working on equipment with Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s propane. Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. Any recovery equipment used should be de- All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ This signed for flammable refrigerants. marking must be located near the machine com- Any refrigerant releases should be in a well- partment. ventilated area, such as outside of a (d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of building. Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Only technicians specifically trained in han- Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This dling flammable refrigerants should serv- marking must be provided on the exterior of the re- ice equipment containing propane. Tech- frigeration equipment. nicians should gain an understanding of (e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling use flammable refrigerants safely. Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Room occupants should evacuate the space Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all ex- immediately following the accidental re- posed refrigerant tubing. lease of this refrigerant. All of these markings must be in letters no less than If a service port is added then, commercial 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. ice machines or equipment using propane The equipment must have red Pantone Matching should have service aperture fittings that System (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other differ from fittings used in equipment or devices through which the refrigerant passes, to in- containers using non-flammable refrig- dicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This erant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the di- color must be applied at all service ports and other ameter differs by at least 1⁄16 inch or the parts of the system where service puncturing or thread direction is reversed (i.e., right- other actions creating an opening from the refrig- handed vs. left-handed). These different erant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected fittings should be permanently affixed to and must extend a minimum of one (1) inch in both the unit at the point of service and main- directions from such locations. tained until the end-of-life of the unit, and should not be accessed with an adaptor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86890 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Very low tem- Propane (R-290) Acceptable, sub- As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR perature refrig- ject to use con- This refrigerant may be used only in new equipment part 1910 must be followed, including eration equip- ditions. designed specifically and clearly identified for the those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and ment (new refrigerant—i.e., this refrigerant may not be used 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liq- only). as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing uids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of equipment. liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 This refrigerant may only be used in equipment that (portable fire extinguishers), and meets all requirements in Supplement SB to UL 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous sub- 471.124 In cases where the final rule includes re- stances). quirements more stringent than those of UL 471, Proper ventilation should be maintained at the appliance must meet the requirements of the all times during the manufacture and stor- final rule in place of the requirements in the UL age of equipment containing hydrocarbon Standard. refrigerants through adherence to good The charge size for the equipment must not exceed manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 150 grams (5.29 ounces) in each refrigerant circuit 1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air of the very low temperature refrigeration equipment. surrounding the equipment rise above As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, 471, the following markings must be attached at the space should be evacuated and re- the locations provided and must be permanent: entry should occur only after the space (a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable has been properly ventilated. Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices Technicians and equipment manufacturers To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrig- should wear appropriate personal protec- erant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on tive equipment, including chemical gog- or near any evaporators that can be contacted by gles and protective gloves, when handling the consumer. propane. Special care should be taken to (b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable avoid contact with the skin since propane, Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained like many refrigerants, can cause freeze Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant burns on the skin. Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near the A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher machine compartment. should be kept nearby. (c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Technicians should only use spark-proof Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s tools when working on equipment with Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. flammable refrigerants. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ This Any recovery equipment used should be de- marking must be located near the machine com- signed for flammable refrigerants. partment. Any refrigerant releases should be in a well- (d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of ventilated area, such as outside of a Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local building. Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This Only technicians specifically trained in han- marking must be provided on the exterior of the re- dling flammable refrigerants should serv- frigeration equipment. ice equipment containing propane. Tech- (e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To nicians should gain an understanding of Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant use flammable refrigerants safely. Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all ex- Room occupants should evacuate the space posed refrigerant tubing. immediately following the accidental re- All of these markings must be in letters no less than lease of this refrigerant. 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high. If a service port is added, then very low The equipment must have red PMS #185 marked temperature equipment using propane pipes, hoses, or other devices through which the should have service aperture fittings that refrigerant passes, to indicate the use of a flam- differ from fittings used in equipment or mable refrigerant. This color must be applied at all containers using non-flammable refrig- service ports and other parts of the system where erant. ‘‘Differ’’ means that either the di- service puncturing or other actions creating an ameter differs by at least 1⁄16 inch or the opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmos- thread direction is reversed (i.e., right- phere might be expected and must extend a min- handed vs. left-handed). These different imum of one (1) inch in both directions from such fittings should be permanently affixed to locations. the unit at the point of service and main- tained until the end-of-life of the unit, and should not be accessed with an adaptor. Very low temperature equipment using pro- pane may also use another acceptable re- frigerant substitute in a separate refrig- erant circuit or stage (e.g., one tempera- ture stage with propane and a second stage with ethane).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86891

REFRIGERANTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Water coolers Propane (R-290) Acceptable, sub- As of January 3, 2017: Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR (new only). ject to use con- This refrigerant may be used only in new equipment part 1910 must be followed, including ditions. designed specifically and clearly identified for the those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and refrigerant—i.e., this refrigerant may not be used 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liq- as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing uids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of equipment. liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 This refrigerant may be used only in water coolers (portable fire extinguishers), and that meet all requirements listed in Supplement SB 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous sub- to UL 399 123 In cases where the rule includes re- stances). quirements more stringent than those of the UL Proper ventilation should be maintained at 399, the appliance must meet the requirements of all times during the manufacture and stor- the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL age of equipment containing hydrocarbon Standard. refrigerants through adherence to good The charge size must not exceed 60 grams (2.12 manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR ounces) per refrigerant circuit in the water cooler. 1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air The equipment must have red PMS #185 marked surrounding the equipment rise above pipes, hoses, or other devices through which the one-fourth of the lower flammability limit, refrigerant passes, to indicate the use of a flam- the space should be evacuated and re- mable refrigerant. This color must be applied at all entry should occur only after the space service ports and other parts of the system where has been properly ventilated. service puncturing or other actions creating an Technicians and equipment manufacturers opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmos- should wear appropriate personal protec- phere might be expected and must extend a min- tive equipment, including chemical gog- imum of one (1) inch in both directions from such gles and protective gloves, when handling locations. propane. Special care should be taken to As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL avoid contact with the skin since propane, 399, the following markings must be attached at like many refrigerants, can cause freeze the locations provided and must be permanent: burns on the skin. (a) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable A Class B dry powder type fire extinguisher Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices should be kept nearby. To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrig- Technicians should only use spark-proof erant Tubing.’’ This marking must be provided on tools when working on equipment with or near any evaporators that can be contacted by flammable refrigerants. the consumer. Any recovery equipment used should be de- (b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable signed for flammable refrigerants. Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Any refrigerant releases should be in a well- Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant ventilated area, such as outside of a Tubing.’’ This marking must be located near the building. machine compartment. Only technicians specifically trained in han- (c) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable dling flammable refrigerants should serv- Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner’s ice equipment containing propane. Tech- Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. nicians should gain an understanding of All Safety Precautions Must be Followed.’’ This minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to marking must be located near the machine com- use flammable refrigerants safely. partment. Room occupants should evacuate the space (d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of immediately following the accidental re- Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local lease of this refrigerant. Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used.’’ This If a service port is added, then water coolers marking must be provided on the exterior of the re- or equipment using propane should have frigeration equipment. service aperture fittings that differ from fit- (e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To tings used in equipment or containers Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling using non-flammable refrigerant. ‘‘Differ’’ Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant means that either the diameter differs by Used.’’ This marking must be provided near all ex- at least 1⁄16 inch or the thread direction is posed refrigerant tubing. reversed (i.e., right-handed vs. left-hand- ed). These different fittings should be per- manently affixed to the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end-of-life of the unit, and should not be accessed with an adaptor. 1 The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket is 202–566–1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 2 You may obtain the material from: Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; [email protected]; 1– 888–853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1–415–352–2168); http://ulstandards.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. 3 UL 399, Standard for Safety: DrinkingWater Coolers.—Supplement SB: Requirements for Drinking Water Coolers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Re- frigerating System, 7th edition, Dated August 22, 2008, including revisions through October 17, 2013. 4 UL 471, Standard for Safety: Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers—Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Re- frigerant in the Refrigerating System, 10th edition, Dated November 24, 2010. 5 UL 563, Standard for Safety: Ice Makers.—Supplement SA: Requirements for Ice Makers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System, 8th edition, Dated July 31, 2009, including revisions through November 29, 2013.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86892 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

REFRIGERANTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Centrifugal chillers HFC-134a ...... Acceptable subject to Acceptable after January 1, 2024, only in Users are required to document and retain (new only). narrowed use limits. military marine vessels where reasonable the results of their technical investigation efforts have been made to ascertain that of alternatives for the purpose of dem- other alternatives are not technically fea- onstrating compliance. Information should sible due to performance or safety re- include descriptions of: quirements. • Application in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and qualified and pro- jected time for switching. Centrifugal chillers HFC-134a and R- Acceptable subject to Acceptable after January 1, 2024, only in Users are required to document and retain (new only). 404A. narrowed use limits. human-rated spacecraft and related sup- the results of their technical investigation port equipment where reasonable efforts of alternatives for the purpose of dem- have been made to ascertain that other onstrating compliance. Information should alternatives are not technically feasible include descriptions of: due to performance or safety require- • Application in which the substitute is ments. needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and qualified and pro- jected time for switching. Positive displacement HFC-134a ...... Acceptable subject to Acceptable after January 1, 2024, only in Users are required to document and retain chillers (new only). narrowed use limits. military marine vessels where reasonable the results of their technical investigation efforts have been made to ascertain that of alternatives for the purpose of dem- other alternatives are not technically fea- onstrating compliance. Information should sible due to performance or safety re- include descriptions of: quirements. • Application in which the substitute is needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and qualified and pro- jected time for switching. Positive displacement HFC-134a and R- Acceptable subject to Acceptable after January 1, 2024, only in Users are required to document and retain chillers (new only). 404A. narrowed use limits. human-rated spacecraft and related sup- the results of their technical investigation port equipment where reasonable efforts of alternatives for the purpose of dem- have been made to ascertain that other onstrating compliance. Information should alternatives are not technically feasible include descriptions of: due to performance or safety require- • Application in which the substitute is ments. needed; • Substitutes examined and rejected; • Reason for rejection of other alter- natives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and qualified and pro- jected time for switching.

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information

Centrifugal chillers (new only) FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2024 ex- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging 227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/ cept where allowed under a narrowed from approximately 900 to 9,810. Other 134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/ use limit. alternatives will be available for this end- 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, use with lower overall risk to human R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R- health and the environment by the sta- 421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- tus change date. 423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R- 507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and THR-03. Centrifugal chillers (new only) Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A ...... Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... These refrigerants are highly photochemically reactive in the lower at- mosphere and may deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86893

REFRIGERANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information

Cold storage warehouses HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/ Unacceptable as of January 1, 2023 ...... These refrigerants have GWPs ranging (new only). 1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, from approximately 2,090 to 3,990. R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R- Other alternatives will be available for 421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R- this end-use with lower overall risk to 422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R- human health and the environment by 434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 the status change date. (2003 composition). Cold storage warehouses Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A ...... Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... These refrigerants are highly (new only). photochemically reactive in the lower at- mosphere and may deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment. Household refrigerators and FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021 ...... These refrigerants have GWPs ranging freezers (new only). 125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), from approximately 900 to 3,985. Other R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R- alternatives will be available for this end- 410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- use with lower overall risk to human 422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- health and the environment by the sta- 424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R- tus change date. 437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. Positive displacement chillers FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC- Unacceptable as of January 1, 2024 ex- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging (new only). 227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/ cept where allowed under a narrowed from approximately 900 to 3,985. Other 70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ use limit. alternatives will be available for this end- 42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R- use with lower overall risk to human 410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R- health and the environment by the sta- 422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R- tus change date. 437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03. Positive displacement chillers Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A ...... Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... These refrigerants are highly (new only). photochemically reactive in the lower at- mosphere and may deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment. Residential and light com- Propylene (R-1270) and R-443A ...... Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... These refrigerants are highly mercial air conditioning and photochemically reactive in the lower at- heat pumps (new only). mosphere and may deteriorate local air quality (that is, may increase ground level ozone). Other alternatives are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the en- vironment. Residential and light com- All refrigerants identified as flammability Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... These refrigerants are highly flammable mercial air conditioning— Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– and present a flammability risk when unitary split AC systems 2013 123. used in equipment designed for non- and heat pumps (retrofit All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammable refrigerants. Other alter- only). flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE natives are available for this end-use Standard 34–2013. This includes, but is with lower overall risk to human health not limited to, refrigerant products sold and the environment. 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. Retail food refrigeration (re- HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021 ...... These refrigerants have GWPs ranging frigerated food processing (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R- from approximately 1,770 to 3,990. and dispensing equipment) 407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R- Other alternatives will be available for (new only). 410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R- this end-use with lower overall risk to 422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R- human health and the environment by 424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R- the status change date. 438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). 1 The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference (5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51). You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to this standard, the telephone number of EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket is 202–566–1742. For information on the availability of this ma- terial at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 2 You may obtain this material from: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 6300 Interfirst Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108; 1–800–527–4723 in the U.S. or Canada; http://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/ashrae_standards.html?ashrae_auth_token=. 3 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34–2013, Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants, 2013.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 86894 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitutes Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Rigid PU: Spray HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2020, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain foam—high-pres- 245fa, and blends narrowed use limits. uary 1, 2025, only in military or space- the results of their technical investigation sure two-compo- thereof; blends of and aeronautics-related applications of alternatives for the purpose of dem- nent. HFC-365mfc with at where reasonable efforts have been made onstrating compliance. Information should least four percent to ascertain that other alternatives are not include descriptions of: HFC-245fa, and technically feasible due to performance or • Process or product in which the sub- commercial blends safety requirements. stitute is needed; of HFC-365mfc with Closed cell foam products and products • Substitutes examined and rejected; seven to 13 percent containing closed cell foams manufac- • Reason for rejection of other alter- HFC-227ea and the tured with these substitutes on or before natives, e.g., performance, technical remainder HFC- January 1, 2025, may be used after that or safety standards; and/or 365mfc; and date. • Anticipated date other substitutes will Formacel TI. be available and projected time for switching. Rigid PU: Spray HFC-134a, HFC- Acceptable subject to Acceptable from January 1, 2021, until Jan- Users are required to document and retain foam—low-pressure 245fa, and blends narrowed use limits. uary 1, 2025, only in military or space- the results of their technical investigation two-component. thereof; blends of and aeronautics-related applications of alternatives for the purpose of dem- HFC-365mfc with at where reasonable efforts have been made onstrating compliance. Information should least four percent to ascertain that other alternatives are not include descriptions of: HFC-245fa, and technically feasible due to performance or • Process or product in which the sub- commercial blends safety requirements. stitute is needed; of HFC-365mfc with Low pressure two-component spray foam • Substitutes examined and rejected; seven to 13 percent kits manufactured with these substitutes • Reason for rejection of other alter- HFC-227ea and the on or before January 1, 2025, for military natives, e.g., performance, technical remainder HFC- or space- and aeronautics-related applica- or safety standards; and/or 365mfc; and tions may be used after that date. • Anticipated date other substitutes will Formacel TI. be available and projected time for switching.

FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitutes Decision Further information

Flexible PU ...... Methylene chloride ...... Unacceptable as of January 3, 2017 ...... Methylene chloride is a carcinogen and may present a toxicity risk. Other alter- natives are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Rigid PU: Spray foam—one HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020 ...... These foam blowing agents have GWPs component foam sealants. thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at One-component foam sealant cans manu- ranging from higher than 730 to approxi- least four percent HFC-245fa, and factured with these substitutes on or be- mately 1,500. Other alternatives will be commercial blends of HFC-365mfc fore January 1, 2020, may be used after available for this end-use with lower over- with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea that date. all risk to human health and the environ- and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and ment by the status change date. Formacel TI. Rigid PU: Spray foam—high- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends Unacceptable as of January 1, 2020, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs pressure two-component. thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 730 to approxi- least four percent HFC-245fa, and use limit. Closed cell foam products and mately 1,500. Other alternatives will be commercial blends of HFC-365mfc products containing closed cell foams available for this end-use with lower over- with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea manufactured with these substitutes on or all risk to human health and the environ- and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and before January 1, 2020, may be used ment by the status change date. Formacel TI. after that date. Rigid PU: Spray foam—low- HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends Unacceptable as of January 1, 2021, ex- These foam blowing agents have GWPs pressure two-component. thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at cept where allowed under a narrowed ranging from higher than 730 to approxi- least four percent HFC-245fa, and use limit. mately 1,500. Other alternatives will be commercial blends of HFC-365mfc Low pressure two-component spray foam available for this end-use with lower over- with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea kits manufactured with these substitutes all risk to human health and the environ- and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and on or before January 1, 2025, may be ment by the status change date. Formacel TI. used after that date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 86895

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Streaming ..... 2-BTP ..... Acceptable, subject to As of January 3, 2017, This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23–0.26 and a short atmos- use conditions. acceptable only for use pheric lifetime of approximately seven days. in handheld extin- This agent is subject to requirements contained in a Toxic Substance Control Act guishers in aircraft. (TSCA) section 5(e) Consent Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR). For establishments manufacturing, installing and maintaining handheld extin- guishers using this agent: (1) Use of this agent should be used in accordance with the latest edition of NFPA Standard 10 for Portable Fire Extinguishers; (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately re- moved and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention; (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-contaminated area; (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if irritation devel- ops or persists; (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should con- sult a physician immediately; (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace atmosphere should be con- ducted; (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the appro- priate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case of accidental re- lease or insufficient ventilation; (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good in- dustrial hygiene practices; and (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent. Total flooding 2-BTP ..... Acceptable, subject to As of January 3, 2017, This fire suppressant has a relatively low GWP of 0.23–0.26 and a short atmos- use conditions. acceptable only for use pheric lifetime of approximately seven days. in engine nacelles and This agent is subject to requirements contained in a TSCA section 5(e) Consent auxiliary power units on Order and any subsequent TSCA section 5(a)(2) SNUR. aircraft. For establishments manufacturing, installing, and servicing engine nacelles and auxiliary power units on aircraft using this agent: (1) This agent should be used in accordance with the safety guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems; (2) In the case that 2-BTP is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately re- moved and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention; (3) Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with fresh water and move to a non-contaminated area. (4) Exposed person(s) should remove all contaminated clothing and footwear to avoid irritation, and medical attention should be sought if irritation devel- ops or persists; (5) Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of 2-BTP, the person(s) should con- sult a physician immediately; (6) Manufacturing space should be equipped with specialized engineering controls and well ventilated with a local exhaust system and low-lying source ventilation to effectively mitigate potential occupational exposure; regular testing and monitoring of the workplace atmosphere should be con- ducted; (7) Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the appro- priate PPE, such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case of accidental re- lease or insufficient ventilation; (8) All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good in- dustrial hygiene practices; (9) Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent; (10) Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems such as pre-dis- charge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA standards; use of this agent should also conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and 1910.162.

[FR Doc. 2016–25167 Filed 11–30–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Nov 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM 01DER2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES2