Vol. 79 Wednesday, No. 151 August 6, 2014

Part VII

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 82 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, AGENCY 0198. DC. The Public Reading Room is open • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 40 CFR Part 82 (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 through Friday, excluding legal [EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198; FRL–9910–19– Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, holidays. The telephone number for the OAR] DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, OAR–2014–0198. Such deliveries are and the telephone number for the Air RIN 2060–AS18 only accepted during the Docket’s and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. normal hours of operation, and special FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: arrangements should be made for Change of Listing Status for Certain Rebecca von dem Hagen, Stratospheric deliveries of boxed information. Protection Division, Office of Substitutes Under the Significant New Instructions: Direct your comments to Alternatives Policy Program Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 6205J, Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection 0198. EPA’s policy is that all comments Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Agency (EPA). received will be included in the public Washington, DC 20460; telephone docket without change and may be ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. number (202) 343–9445; fax number made available online at (202) 343–2338, email address: SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. www.regulations.gov, including any [email protected]. Notices Environmental Protection Agency’s personal information provided, unless and rulemakings under EPA’s the comment includes information Significant New Alternatives Policy Significant New Alternatives Policy claimed to be Confidential Business program, this action proposes to change (SNAP) program are available on EPA’s Information (CBI) or other information the status of a number of substitutes that Stratospheric Ozone Web site at whose disclosure is restricted by statute. were previously listed as acceptable, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. Do not submit information that you based on information showing that other SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: substitutes are available for the same consider to be CBI or otherwise uses that pose lower risk overall to protected through www.regulations.gov Table of Contents or email. The www.regulations.gov Web human health and/or the environment. I. General Information Specifically, this action proposes to site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, A. Executive Summary modify the listings for certain which means EPA will not know your B. Does this action apply to me? hydrofluorocarbons in various end-uses identity or contact information unless C. What should I consider as I prepare my in the aerosols, refrigeration and air you provide it in the body of your comments for EPA? conditioning, and foam blowing sectors. comment. If you send an email D. What acronyms and abbreviations are This action also proposes use conditions comment directly to EPA without going used in the preamble? through www.regulations.gov, your II. How does the SNAP program work? that would restrict the use of A. What are the statutory requirements and hydrofluorocarbons to those uses where email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the authority for the SNAP program? there are not substitutes available or B. What are EPA’s regulations comment that is placed in the public potentially available that reduce overall implementing CAA section 612? risk to human health and/or the docket and made available on the C. How do the regulations for the SNAP environment. This action also proposes Internet. If you submit an electronic program work? to change the status from acceptable to comment, EPA recommends that you D. What are the guiding principles of the include your name and other contact SNAP program? unacceptable for certain information in the body of your E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating hydrochlorofluorocarbons being phased comment and with any disk or CD–ROM substitutes under the SNAP program? out of production under the Montreal you submit. If EPA cannot read your F. How are SNAP determinations updated? Protocol on Substances that Deplete the comment due to technical difficulties G. What does EPA consider in deciding Ozone Layer and Section 605(a) of the whether to modify a determination? and cannot contact you for clarification, Clean Air Act. H. Where can I get additional information EPA may not be able to consider your about the SNAP program? DATES: Comments must be received on comment. Electronic files should avoid III. What actions and information related to or before October 6, 2014. EPA is the use of special characters, any form greenhouse gases have bearing on this planning to hold a public hearing to of encryption, and be free of any defects proposed decision to modify prior SNAP take place on August 27, 2014, starting or viruses. For additional instructions determinations? at 9 a.m. in Room 1153, EPA East on submitting comments, go to Section IV. What petitions has EPA received (entrance from 1201 Constitution I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION requesting a change in listing status for Avenue), Washington, DC and further section of this document. substitutes with a high global warming information will be provided on EPA’s Docket: All documents in the docket potential? Stratospheric Ozone Web site at A. Summary of Petitions are listed in the www.regulations.gov B. How Today’s Action Relates to Petitions www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. index. Although listed in the index, V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, some information is not publicly A. Aerosols identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– available, i.e., CBI or other information 1. Background OAR–2014–0198, by one of the whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 2. Aerosols Today following methods: Certain other material, such as 3. What is EPA proposing concerning • www.regulations.gov. Follow the copyrighted material, is not placed on aerosols? on-line instructions for submitting the Internet and will be publicly a. What other alternatives are available? comments. available only in hard copy form. i. Consumer Aerosols ii. Technical Aerosols • Email: [email protected]. Publicly available docket materials are • iii. Medical Aerosols Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, available either electronically in b. What other approaches is EPA Environmental Protection Agency, Mail www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at considering? Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, c. When would the modified listings NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 apply?

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46127

d. On which topics is EPA requesting f. Summary on the substitutes being considered, the comment? VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? SNAP criteria for evaluation, and the B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for A. What are the proposed modifications to current suite of other available and Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor the listings for the three HCFCs and in potentially available substitutes. Vehicles which end-uses? 1. Background B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for EPA is proposing to modify the 2. What is EPA proposing regarding use of HCFCs? following listings by end-use: HFC–134a and use of refrigerant blends 1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the (1) For aerosol propellants, we are in MVAC systems for newly Three HCFCs With Regulations proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 manufactured light-duty motor vehicles? Implementing CAA Sections 605 and 610 • HFC–125 as unacceptable; 3. Would this action affect EPA’s light duty 2. Anticipated Effects • HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to vehicle rule? VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to exports use conditions, allowing its use only in C. Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending and imports? specific types of technical and medical Machines VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) 1. Background A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory (and prohibiting its use in consumer 2. What is EPA proposing for new and Planning and Review aerosols); and retrofit retail food refrigeration B. Paperwork Reduction Act • (condensing units and supermarket C. Regulatory Flexibility Act HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to systems)? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act use conditions, allowing its use only in a. New Condensing Units and Supermarket E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism metered dose inhalers. Systems F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning b. Retrofit Condensing Units and and Coordination With Indian Tribal systems in newly manufactured light- Supermarket Systems Governments duty vehicles, we are proposing to list 3. What is EPA proposing for new and G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of • HFC–134a as unacceptable starting retrofit stand-alone equipment? Children From Environmental Health with model year (MY) 2021; and a. New Stand-alone Equipment and Safety Risks • The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– b. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 4. What is EPA proposing for new and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A retrofit vending machines? Distribution, or Use (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or a. New Vending Machines I. National Technology Transfer and FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also b. Retrofit Vending Machines Advancement Act known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), 5. When would the listings change? J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend 6. Applicability to Service of Existing To Address Environmental Justice in Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also Equipment Minority Populations and Low-Income known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– 7. Energy Efficiency Consideration Populations X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also IX. References 8. What other options is EPA considering? known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units and Supermarket Systems I. General Information starting with MY 2017. (3) For new and retrofit retail food b. New Stand-alone Equipment and A. Executive Summary Vending Machines refrigeration (including stand-alone c. Retrofit Stand-alone Equipment and This notice of proposed rulemaking equipment, condensing units, direct Vending Machines would change the status of certain supermarket systems, and indirect d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in Other substitutes 1 previously found supermarket systems) and new and end-uses acceptable under the Significant New retrofit vending machines, we are D. Foam Blowing Agents Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 1. Background EPA is proposing to modify the listings • The HFC blends R–507A and R– 2. What is EPA proposing for foam blowing from acceptable to unacceptable for 404A as unacceptable. agents? certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and (4) For new and retrofit retail food a. What other foam blowing agents are being used? HFC blends in aerosol, foam blowing, refrigeration (including direct b. What are the health and environmental and air conditioning and refrigerant supermarket systems and indirect impacts of the substitute foam blowing end-uses where other alternatives are supermarket systems), we are proposing agents? available or potentially available that to list, as of January 1, 2016 i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents pose overall lower risk. Per the guiding • HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam principle stated above, EPA is 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and iii. Flexible Polyurethane considering the intersection between the R–434A as unacceptable. iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam specific HFC or HFC blend and the (5) For new stand-alone retail food v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in Commercial particular end-use. This action does not refrigeration and new vending Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels machines, we are proposing to list, as of vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other propose that any specific HFCs be unacceptable across all sectors and end- January 1, 2016 Foam • vii. Rigid Polyurethane and uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for HFC–134a and certain other HFC Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock any specific sector, the only acceptable refrigerant blends as unacceptable. viii. Polystyrene Extruded Sheet substitutes are HFC-free. EPA recognizes (6) For foam blowing agents, we are ix. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and that both fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, Billet hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non- except where allowed under a narrowed x. Integral Skin Polyurethane fluorinated (e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), use limit, xi. Polyolefin Foam • carbon dioxide (CO2)) substitutes are HFC–134a and blends thereof as xii. Phenolic Insulation Board and unacceptable in all foam blowing end- Bunstock potentially acceptable. Instead, consistent with SNAP’s history and uses; c. How does EPA propose to regulate foams • and products containing foams? Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– d. When would the listings change? is proposing these modifications based 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC e. Narrowed Use Limits for Military or blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as Space- and Aeronautics-related 1 The terms ‘‘substitutes’’ and ‘‘alternatives’’ are unacceptable in all foam blowing end- Applications used interchangeably. uses where they are currently listed as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

acceptable, except for spray foam costs associated with sector transitions, substances, from acceptable to applications; and estimated benefits associated with the unacceptable in aerosols, foam blowing • The HFC blend Formacel TI as transition to alternatives, and potential agents, fire suppression and explosion unacceptable in all foam blowing end- small business impacts.2345678 The protection agents, sterilants, and uses where it is currently listed as emissions reductions from this adhesives, coatings and inks. These acceptable. proposed rule are estimated to be 31 to modifications reflect the existing In general, EPA is proposing 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide regulations promulgated under CAA modifications to the listings based on equivalent (MMTCO2eq) in 2020. These sections 605(a) and 610(d) codified at 40 the SNAP program’s comparative risk documents are available in the docket CFR part 82 subparts A and C. The framework. The sections that follow for commenters to review. EPA is provide the analyses supporting the modified listings would take effect 60 proposed listing modifications and the planning to prepare a consolidated days following issuance of a final rule dates when the modified listings would analysis document. promulgating this proposal. apply to users of these substitutes. In EPA is also proposing to modify the B. Does this action apply to me? addition, EPA has prepared supporting listings for hydrochlorofluorocarbon documentation on this rule including (HCFC)–141b, HCFC–142b, and HCFC– Potential entities that may be affected market characterizations, analyses of 22, as well as blends that contain these by this proposed rule include:

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

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities

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

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46129

consult the person listed in the above CAA—Clean Air Act ozone-depleting substances. This section, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service program is known as the Significant CONTACT. Registry Identification Number New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) CBI—Confidential Business Information program. The major provisions of C. What should I consider as I prepare CFC—Chlorofluorocarbon section 612 are: my comments for EPA? CFR—Code of Federal Regulations CH 4—Methane 1. Rulemaking 1. Submitting Confidential Business CO2—Carbon dioxide Information (CBI) CO2eq—Carbon dioxide equivalent Section 612(c) requires EPA to Do not submit confidential DOE—United States Department of Energy promulgate rules making it unlawful to information to EPA through EIA—Environmental Investigation Agency- replace any class I (e.g., US chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly EO—Executive Order mark the part or all of the information tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, EPA—United States Environmental methyl bromide, and that you claim to be CBI. For CBI Protection Agency information in a disk or CD–ROM that hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II EU—European Union (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the FDA—United States Food and Drug disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then Administration substance with any substitute that the identify electronically within the disk or FR—Federal Register Administrator determines may present CD–ROM the specific information that GHG—Greenhouse gas adverse effects to human health or the is claimed as CBI. In addition to one Gt—Gigaton environment where the Administrator GWP—Global warming potential complete version of the comment that has identified an alternative that (1) HC—Hydrocarbon reduces the overall risk to human health includes information claimed as CBI, a HCFC—Hydrochlorofluorocarbon copy of the comment that does not and the environment and (2) is currently HFC—Hydrofluorocarbon or potentially available. contain the information claimed as CBI HFO—Hydrofluoroolefin must be submitted for inclusion in the ICF—ICF International, Inc. 2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable public docket. Information marked as ICR—Information collection request Substitutes CBI will not be disclosed except in IGSD—Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development Section 612(c) requires EPA to accordance with procedures set forth in publish a list of the substitutes that it 40 CFR part 2. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds to be unacceptable for specific 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments MDI—metered dose inhaler uses and to publish a corresponding list MVAC—Motor vehicle air conditioning When submitting comments, of acceptable alternatives for specific N2—Nitrogen uses. The list of ‘‘acceptable’’ substitutes remember to: NAICS—North American Industrial • Identify the rulemaking by docket is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/ Classification System lists and the lists of ‘‘unacceptable,’’ number and other identifying NIOSH—United States National Institute for information (subject heading, Federal Occupational Safety and Health ‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ Register date, and page number). NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use • Follow directions–The agency may NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and limits’’ substitutes are found in the ask you to respond to specific questions Advancement Act appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. OEM—Original equipment manufacturer or organize comments by referencing a 3. Petition Process CFR part or section number. ODP—Ozone depletion potential • Explain why you agree or disagree; ODS—Ozone-depleting substance Section 612(d) grants the right to any suggest alternatives and substitute OMB—United States Office of Management person to petition EPA to add a and Budget substance to, or delete a substance from, language for your requested changes. OSHA—United States Occupational Safety • Describe any assumptions and the lists published in accordance with and Health Administration section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days provide any technical information and/ PEL—Permissible exposure limit or data that you used. PFC—Perfluorocarbons to grant or deny a petition. Where the • If you estimate potential costs or ppm—Parts per million Agency grants the petition, EPA must burdens, explain how you arrived at PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act publish the revised lists within an your estimate in sufficient detail to REL—Recommended exposure limit additional six months. RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act allow for it to be reproduced. 4. 90-day Notification • Provide specific examples to SF 6— Sulfur hexafluoride illustrate your concerns and suggest SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy Section 612(e) directs EPA to require alternatives. SRES—Special Report on Emissions any person who produces a chemical • Explain your views as clearly as Scenarios substitute for a class I substance to TLV—Threshold limit value notify the Agency not less than 90 days possible, avoiding the use of profanity TWA—Time-weighted average or personal threats. before new or existing chemicals are • UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Make sure to submit your VOC—Volatile organic compounds introduced into interstate commerce for comments by the comment period WEEL—Workplace Environmental Exposure significant new uses as substitutes for a deadline. Limit class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the D. What acronyms and abbreviations II. How does the SNAP program work? producer’s unpublished health and are used in the preamble? safety studies on such substitutes. Below is a list of acronyms and A. What are the statutory requirements abbreviations used in the preamble of and authority for the SNAP program? 5. Outreach this document: Section 612 of the Clean Air Act Section 612(b)(1) states that the ACGIH—American Conference of (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Administrator shall seek to maximize Governmental Industrial Hygienists Protection Agency (hereafter referred to the use of federal research facilities and AIHA—American Industrial Hygiene as EPA or the Agency) to develop a resources to assist users of class I and Association program for evaluating alternatives to II substances in identifying and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

developing alternatives to the use of responsible for introducing a substitute narrowed use substitute to demonstrate such substances in key commercial into commerce. The 90-day SNAP that no other acceptable substitutes are applications. review process begins once EPA available for their specific application. receives the submission and determines EPA describes these substitutes as 6. Clearinghouse that the submission includes complete ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). limits.’’ A person using a substitute that to set up a public clearinghouse of The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 is acceptable subject to narrowed use alternative chemicals, product CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a limits in applications and end-uses that substitutes, and alternative substitute earlier than 90 days after a are not consistent with the narrowed manufacturing processes that are complete submission has been provided use limit is using these substitutes in available for products and to the Agency. violation of section 612 of the CAA and manufacturing processes which use The Agency has identified four EPA’s SNAP regulations. 40 CFR class I and II substances. possible decision categories for 82.174(c). B. What are EPA’s regulations substitute submissions: Acceptable; The section 612 mandate for EPA to implementing CAA section 612? acceptable subject to use conditions; prohibit the use of a substitute that may acceptable subject to narrowed use present risk to human health or the On March 18, 1994, EPA published limits; and unacceptable.11 40 CFR environment where a lower risk the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed alternative is available or potentially which established the process for use limits are both considered ‘‘use available 13 provides EPA with the administering the SNAP program and restrictions’’ and are explained below. authority to change the listing status of issued EPA’s first lists identifying Substitutes that are deemed acceptable a particular substitute if such a change acceptable and unacceptable substitutes without use conditions can be used for is justified by new information or in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR all applications within the relevant end- changed circumstance. part 82, subpart G). These sectors are the uses within the sector and without The Agency publishes its SNAP following: Refrigeration and air limits under SNAP on how they may be program decisions in the Federal conditioning; foam blowing; solvents used. Substitutes that are acceptable Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment cleaning; fire suppression and explosion subject to use restrictions may be used rulemaking to place any alternative on protection; sterilants; aerosols; only in accordance with those the list of prohibited substitutes, to list adhesives, coatings and inks; and restrictions. Substitutes that are found a substitute as acceptable only subject to tobacco expansion. These sectors to be unacceptable may not be used after use conditions or narrowed use limits, comprise the principal industrial sectors the date specified in the rulemaking or to remove a substitute from either the that historically consumed the largest adding such substitute to the list of list of prohibited or acceptable volumes of ozone-depleting substances unacceptable substitutes.12 substitutes. (ODS). After reviewing a substitute, the In contrast, EPA publishes ‘‘notices of C. How do the regulations for the SNAP Agency may determine that a substitute acceptability’’ to notify the public of program work? is acceptable only if certain conditions substitutes that are deemed acceptable in the way that the substitute is used are with no restrictions. As described in the Under the SNAP regulations, anyone met to ensure risks to human health and preamble to the rule initially who produces a substitute to replace a the environment are not significantly implementing the SNAP program (59 FR class I or II ODS in one of the eight greater than other available substitutes. 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not major industrial use sectors must EPA describes such substitutes as believe that rulemaking procedures are provide the Agency with notice and the ‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ necessary to list substitutes that are required health and safety information Entities that use these substitutes acceptable without restrictions because on the substitute at least 90 days before without meeting the associated use such listings neither impose any introducing it into interstate commerce conditions are in violation of section sanction nor prevent anyone from using for significant new use as an alternative. 612 of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s a substitute. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). Many SNAP listings include requirement typically applies to For some substitutes, the Agency may ‘‘comments’’ or ‘‘further information’’ to chemical manufacturers as the person permit a narrow range of use within an provide additional information on likely to be planning to introduce the end-use or sector. For example, the substitutes. Since this additional substitute into interstate commerce,9 it Agency may limit the use of a substitute information is not part of the regulatory may also apply to importers, to certain end-uses or specific decision, these statements are not formulators, equipment manufacturers, applications within an industry sector. binding for use of the substitute under or end-users 10 when they are The Agency requires a user of a the SNAP program. However, regulatory

9 requirements so listed are binding under As defined at 40 CFR 82.104 ‘‘interstate 11 commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ other regulatory programs (e.g., worker of any product between one state, territory, referring to submissions for which EPA has not protection regulations promulgated by reached a determination, under this provision. possession or the District of Columbia, and another the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health state, territory, possession or the District of 12 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, ‘‘use’’ means any Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone- product in more than one state, territory, possession depleting compound, including but not limited to 13 In addition to acceptable commercially or District of Columbia. The entry points for which use in a manufacturing process or product, in available substitutes, the SNAP program may a product is introduced into interstate commerce consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate consider potentially available substitutes. The are the release of a product from the facility in uses, such as formulation or packaging for other SNAP program’s definition of ‘‘potentially which the product was manufactured, the entry into subsequent uses. This definition of use available’’ is ‘‘any alternative for which adequate a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer encompasses manufacturing process of products health, safety, and environmental data, as required releases the product for sale or distribution, and at both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a the site of United States Customs clearance. manufactured within the United States exclusively determination of acceptability, and which the 10 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172 ‘‘end-use’’ means for export are subject to SNAP requirements since Agency reasonably believes to be technically processes or classes of specific applications within the definition of use in the rule includes use in the feasible, even if not all testing has yet been major industrial sectors where a substitute is used manufacturing process, which occurs within the completed and the alternative is not yet produced to replace an ozone-depleting substance. United States. or sold.’’ (40 CFR 82.172)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46131

Administration (OSHA)). The ‘‘further Central to SNAP’s evaluations is the environmental impacts, ecosystem risks, information’’ classification does not intersection between the characteristics consumer risks, flammability, and cost necessarily include all other legal of the substitute itself and its specific and availability of the substitute. To obligations pertaining to the use of the end-use application. Section 612 enable EPA to assess these criteria, we substitute. While the items listed are not requires that substitutes be evaluated by require submitters to include various legally binding under the SNAP use. Environmental and human health information including ozone depletion program, EPA encourages users of exposures can vary significantly potential (ODP), global warming substitutes to apply all statements in the depending on the particular application potential (GWP), toxicity, flammability, ‘‘further information’’ column in their of a substitute. Thus, the risk and the potential for human exposure. use of these substitutes. In many characterizations must be designed to When evaluating potential substitutes, instances, the information simply refers represent differences in the EPA evaluates these criteria in the to sound operating practices that have environmental and human health effects following groupings: already been identified in existing associated with diverse uses. This • Atmospheric effects—The SNAP industry and/or building codes or approach cannot, however, imply program evaluates the potential standards. Thus, many of the fundamental tradeoffs with respect to contributions to both ozone depletion statements, if adopted, would not different types of risk to either the and climate change. The SNAP program require the affected user to make environment or to human health. considers the ozone depletion potential significant changes in existing operating • Provide the regulated community and the 100-year integrated GWP of practices. with information as soon as possible compounds to assess atmospheric The Agency recognizes the need to effects. D. What are the guiding principles of the provide the regulated community with • Exposure assessments—The SNAP SNAP program? information on the acceptability of program uses exposure assessments to The seven guiding principles of the various substitutes as soon as possible. estimate concentration levels of SNAP program, elaborated in the To do so, EPA issues notices or substitutes to which workers, preamble to the initial SNAP rule and determinations of acceptability and consumers, the general population, and based on section 612, are discussed rules identifying substitutes as environmental receptors may be below. unacceptable, acceptable to use exposed over a determined period of • Evaluate substitutes within a conditions or acceptable subject to time. These assessments are based on comparative risk framework narrowed use limits in the Federal personal monitoring data or area The SNAP program evaluates the risk Register. In addition, we maintain lists sampling data if available. Exposure of alternative compounds compared to of acceptable and unacceptable assessments may be conducted for many available or potentially available alternatives on our Web site, types of releases including: substitutes to the ozone depleting www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. (1) Releases in the workplace and in compounds which they are intended to • Do not endorse products homes; replace. The risk factors that are manufactured by specific companies (2) Releases to ambient air and surface considered include ozone depletion The Agency does not issue company- water; potential as well as flammability, specific product endorsements. In many (3) Releases from the management of toxicity, occupational health and safety, cases, the Agency may base its analysis solid wastes. and contributions to climate change and on data received on individual • Toxicity data—The SNAP program other environmental factors. products, but the addition of a uses toxicity data to assess the possible • Do not require that substitutes be substitute to the acceptable list based on health and environmental effects of risk free to be found acceptable that analysis does not represent an exposure to substitutes. We use broad For substitutes to be found acceptable endorsement of that company’s health-based criteria such as: they must pose less risk than other products. (1) Permissible Exposure Limits substitutes, but they do not have to be • Defer to other environmental (PELs) for occupational exposure; risk free. Where risks of a substitute regulations when warranted (2) Inhalation reference would otherwise be higher than other In some cases, EPA and other federal concentrations (RfCs) for non- substitutes, EPA may find these agencies have developed extensive carcinogenic effects on the general alternatives acceptable subject to use regulations under other sections of the population; conditions or narrowed use limits that CAA or other statutes that address any (3) Cancer slope factors for would manage the risk. potential environmental impacts that carcinogenic risk to members of the • Restrict those substitutes that are may result from the use of alternatives general population. significantly worse to class I and class II substances. For When considering risks in the EPA does not intend to restrict a example, use of some substitutes may in workplace, if OSHA has not issued a substitute if it has only marginally some cases entail increased use of PEL for a compound, EPA then greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions chemicals that contribute to considers Recommended Exposure would be extremely difficult. The tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP Limits from the National Institute for Agency also does not want to intercede program takes existing regulations Occupational Safety and Health, in the market’s choice of substitutes by under other programs into account Workplace Environmental Exposure listing as unacceptable all but a few when reviewing substitutes. Limits (WEELs) set by the American substitutes for each end-use. Thus, the Industrial Hygiene Association, or Agency will not list a potential E. What are EPA’s criteria for evaluating Threshold Limit Values set by the substitute as unacceptable unless EPA substitutes under the SNAP program? American Conference of Governmental determines that the substitute is EPA applies the same criteria for Industrial Hygienists. If limits for significantly more harmful to human determining whether a substitute is occupational exposure or exposure to health or the environment than other acceptable or unacceptable. These the general population are not already available or potentially available criteria, which can be found at established, then EPA derives these alternatives. § 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric values following the Agency’s peer • Evaluate risks by use effects and related health and reviewed guidelines. Exposure

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

information is combined with toxicity allows any person to petition the substitutes acceptable only for limited information to explore any basis for Administrator to add a substance to the end-uses or subject to use restrictions. concern. Toxicity data are used with list of acceptable or unacceptable In May 2013 EPA stated: existing EPA guidelines to develop substitutes or to remove a substance EPA recognizes that during the nearly two- health-based limits for interim use in from either list. The second means is decade long history of the SNAP program, these risk characterizations. through the notifications which must be new alternatives and new information about • Flammability—The SNAP program submitted to EPA 90 days before alternatives have emerged. To the extent examines flammability as a safety introduction of a substitute into possible, EPA considers new information and concern for workers and consumers. interstate commerce for significant new improved understanding of the risk factors EPA assesses flammability risk using use as an alternative to a class I or class for the environment and human health in the context of the available or potentially data on: II substance. These 90-day notifications available alternatives for a given use. (78 FR (1) Flash point and flammability are required by section 612(e) of the 29035) limits (e.g. OSHA flammability/ CAA for producers of substitutes to combustibility classifications); class I substances for new uses and, in It has now been about twenty years (2) Data on testing of blends with all other cases, by EPA regulations since the initial SNAP rule was flammable components; issued under sections 114 and 301 of promulgated. In that period, the menu (3) Test data on flammability in the Act to implement section 612(c). of available alternatives has expanded consumer applications conducted by Finally, we interpret the section 612 greatly and now includes many independent laboratories; and mandate to find substitutes acceptable substitutes with diverse characteristics (4) Information on flammability risk or unacceptable to include the authority and effects on human health and the mitigation techniques. to act on our own to add or remove a environment. When the SNAP program • Other environmental impacts—The substance from the SNAP lists. In began, the number of substitutes SNAP program also examines other determining whether to add or remove available for consideration was, for potential environmental impacts such as a substance from the SNAP lists, we many end-uses, somewhat limited. ecotoxicity and local air quality consider whether there are other While the SNAP program’s initial impacts. A compound that is likely to be available substitutes that pose a lower comparative assessments of overall risk discharged to water may be evaluated risk to human health and the to human health and the environment for impacts on aquatic life. Some environment. In determining whether to were rigorous, often there were few substitutes are volatile organic modify a listing of a substitute we substitutes to apply the comparative compounds (VOCs). EPA also notes consider new data not considered at the assessment. The immediacy of the class whenever a potential substitute is time of our original listing decision, I phaseout often meant that SNAP listed considered a hazardous or toxic air including information on new class II ODS (i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) substitutes and new information on recognizing that they too would be and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under substitutes previously reviewed. phased out and were only an interim the Resource Conservation and solution. Other Title VI provisions such Recovery Act subtitle C regulations. G. What does EPA consider in deciding as the section 610 Nonessential Over the past twenty years, the menu whether to modify a determination? Products Ban and the section 605 Use of substitutes has become much broader As described in this document and Restriction meant a listing under the and a great deal of new information has elsewhere, including in the original SNAP program did not convey been developed on many substitutes. SNAP rulemaking published in the permanence. Because the overall goal of the SNAP Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 Since EPA issued the initial SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes FR 13044), section 612 of the CAA rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 18 listed as acceptable do not pose requires EPA to list as unacceptable any rules and 28 notices expanding the significantly greater risk to human substitute substance where it finds that menu of options for all SNAP sectors health and the environment than other there are other substitutes currently or and end-uses. Comparisons today are to available substitutes, the SNAP criteria potentially available that reduce overall a broader range of options—both should be informed by our current risk to human health and the chemical and non-chemical—than at the overall understanding of environmental environment. In addition to comparing inception of the SNAP program. and human health impacts and our the human health and environmental Industry experience with these experience with and current knowledge effects of other available or potentially substitutes has also grown during the about available and potentially available available substitutes for the same end- history of the program. This varies by substitutes. Over time, the range of uses, we also compare substitutes to the sector and by end-use. substitutes reviewed by SNAP has ozone-depleting substances being In addition to an expanding menu of changed, and, at the same time, phased out under the Montreal Protocol substitutes, developments over the past scientific approaches have evolved to on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 20 years have improved our more accurately assess the potential Layer (Montreal Protocol) and under the understanding of global environmental environmental and human health CAA. issues. With regards to that information, impacts of these chemicals and The original SNAP rule included many of the substitute-specific actions alternative technologies. submission requirements and presented proposed in this rule have undergone the environmental and health risk comparative assessments that consider F. How are SNAP determinations factors that the SNAP program considers our evolving understanding of climate updated? in its comparative risk framework. change. GWPs and climate effects are Three mechanisms exist for modifying Environmental and human health not new elements in our evaluation the list of SNAP determinations. First, exposures can vary significantly framework, but along with all of our under section 612(d), the Agency must depending on the particular application review criteria the amount and quality review and either grant or deny of a substitute; therefore, EPA makes of information has expanded. petitions to add or delete substances decisions based on the particular end- To the extent possible, EPA’s ongoing from the SNAP list of acceptable or use where a substitute is to be used. management of the SNAP program unacceptable substitutes. That provision EPA has, in many cases, found certain considers new information and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46133

improved understanding of the risk to substitutes, refer to the SNAP final projected to double by 2020 and triple the environment and human health. rulemaking published March 18, 1994 by 2030.17 HFCs are rapidly EPA previously has taken several (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part accumulating in the atmosphere. The actions revising listing determinations 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of atmospheric concentration of HFC– from acceptable or acceptable with use SNAP decisions and the appropriate 134a, the most abundant HFC, has conditions to unacceptable based on citations are found at www.epa.gov/ increased by about 10% per year from information made available to EPA after ozone/snap/chron.html. 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of a listing was issued. For example, on III. What actions and information HFC–143a and HFC–125 have risen over January 26, 1999, EPA listed the 13% and 16% per year from 2007–2011, refrigerant known by the trade name related to greenhouse gases have respectively.18 19 MT–31 as unacceptable for all bearing on this proposed decision to refrigeration and air conditioning end- modify prior SNAP determinations? Annual global emissions of HFCs are uses. EPA previously listed this blend as GWP, along with other criteria, is a projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 Gt 20 an acceptable substitute in various end- factor in the overall evaluation of CO2eq in 2050 , which is comparable uses within the refrigeration and air alternatives under the SNAP program. to the drop in annual GHG emissions conditioning sector (June 3, 1997; 62 FR During the past two decades, the general from ODS of 8.0 GtCO2eq between 1988 30275). Based on new information about science on climate change and the and 2010 (UNEP, 2011). By 2050, the the toxicity of one of the chemicals in potential contributions of greenhouse buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is the blend, EPA subsequently removed gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate projected to increase radiative forcing MT–31 from the list of acceptable change have become better understood. by up to 0.4 W m2. This increase may substitutes and listed it as unacceptable On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of in all refrigeration and air conditioning the Administrator issued two distinct the expected increase in radiative end-uses (January 26, 1999; 64 FR 3861). findings regarding GHGs under section forcing due to the buildup of CO2 since Another example of EPA revising a 14 202(a) of the Clean Air Act : 2000, according to the IPCC’s Special listing determination occurred in 2007 • Endangerment Finding: the current Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) when EPA listed HCFC–22 and HCFC– and projected concentrations of the six (UNEP, 2011). To appreciate the 142b as unacceptable for use in the foam key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the significance of the effect of projected sector (March 28, 2007; 72 FR 14432). atmosphere — CO , methane (CH ), 2 4 HFC emissions within the context of all These HCFCs, which are ozone nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, depleting and subject to a global perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to 5 to 12% of the CO2 emissions in 2050 production phaseout, were initially hexafluoride (SF6) — threaten the public listed as acceptable substitutes since health and welfare of current and future based on the IPCC’s highest CO2 they had a lower ODP than the generations. emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 substances they were replacing and • Cause or Contribute Finding: the to 69% of CO2 emissions based on the there were no other available substitutes combined emissions of these well- IPCC’s lowest CO2 emissions that posed lower risk at the time of mixed greenhouse gases from new pathway.21 22 Additional information EPA’s listing decision. HCFCs offered a motor vehicles and new motor vehicle concerning the peer-reviewed scientific path forward for some sectors and end- engines contribute to the greenhouse gas literature and emission scenarios is uses at a time when substitutes were far pollution which threatens public health available in the docket for this more limited. In light of the expanded and welfare. rulemaking. availability of alternative substitutes Like the ODSs they replace, HFCs are with lower overall risk to human health potent GHGs.15 Though they represent a and the environment in specific foam small fraction of the current total end-uses, and taking into account the volume of GHG emissions, their 2010 class II ODS phasedown step, EPA warming impact is very strong because 17 Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and changed the listing for these HCFCs in they can remain trapped in the Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific these end-uses from acceptable to atmosphere for up to 250+ years and Papers, 2013. unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted impacting climate change 20,000 times 18 Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: that continued use of these HCFCs more powerfully than CO2, and their Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, ASHRAE/ would contribute to unnecessary emissions are projected to accelerate NIST Conference 2012. depletion of the ozone layer and delay over the next several decades if left 19 NOAA data at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/ the transition to substitutes that pose hfcs/. unregulated. In the United States, 20 lower overall risk to human health and emissions of HFCs are increasing more Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. the environment. EPA allowed existing McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009) The large quickly than those of any other GHGs, contribution of projected HFC emissions to future users to continue use for a limited time and globally they are increasing 10–15% climate forcing. Proceedings of the National to ensure that they could adjust their annually.16 At that rate, emissions are Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. manufacturing processes to safely 21 HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and accommodate the use of other 14 The relevant scientific and technical the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment substitutes. information summarized to support the Programme (UNEP), 2011, 36pp Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute 22 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario H. Where can I get additional Finding can be found at: www.epa.gov/ Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/ information about the SNAP program? Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. Endangerment_TSD.pdf In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science For copies of the comprehensive 15 IPCC/TEAP (2005) Special Report: Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth SNAP lists of substitutes or additional Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s Climate System: Issues Related to Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, New York). Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. For more information on the Agency’s 16 UNEP 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. process for administering the SNAP Climate and the Ozone Layer. United Nations Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United program or criteria for evaluation of Environment Programme. Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

IV. What petitions has EPA received substitutes be based on the ‘‘most stand-alone retail food refrigerators and requesting a change in listing status for rapidly feasible transitions to one or freezers; substitutes with a high global warming more of the’’ acceptable substitutes for • Restrict the sales of SNAP-listed potential? each use. The petitioner noted that refrigerants to all except certified initial approvals of HFC–134a for a technicians with access to service tools A. Summary of Petitions number of end-uses occurred in the required under existing EPA EPA received three petitions 1990s and were based on the assessment regulations; requesting EPA to modify certain made then that (1) HFC–134a does not • Adopt a standardized procedure to acceptability listings of HFC–134a and contribute to ozone depletion; (2) HFC– determine the speed of transition from HFC–134a blends. The first petition was 134a’s GWP and atmospheric lifetime obsolete high-GWP HFCs to next- submitted on May 7, 2010, by Natural were close to those of other substitutes generation alternatives and substitutes; • Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on that had been determined to be Remove, in addition to HFC–134a, behalf of NRDC, the Institute for acceptable for the end-uses; and (3) all other refrigerants with 100-year Governance and Sustainable HFC–134a is not flammable, and its GWPs greater than 150 from the Development (IGSD), and the toxicity is low.23 The petitioner stated acceptable substitutes list for household Environmental Investigation Agency-US that the analysis used in the listing refrigerators and freezers and stand- (EIA). The petition requested that EPA decisions may have been appropriate in alone retail food refrigerators and remove HFC–134a from the list of the 1990s but was no longer reflected freezers. acceptable substitutes for ODS and accurately given the range of other On August 7, 2013, EPA found this move it to the list of unacceptable available or potentially available petition to be incomplete. EPA and the substitutes in multiple uses. The substitutes at present. petitioner have exchanged further petitioners subsequently clarified that In addition to petitioning EPA for correspondence that can be found in the they were requesting this change for the action under SNAP, the petitioner docket. Although EPA has found the use of HFC–134a in new passenger cars requested that the section 610 petition incomplete, EPA’s action in this and light-duty trucks, non-medical Nonessential Products Ban be extended proposal may be considered responsive aerosols, and for certain refrigeration to HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends for to certain aspects of the petition, given and foam blowing end-uses. In support aerosols and pressurized dispensers EPA is proposing to change the listing of their petition, the petitioners (including tire inflators); foam blowing of HFC–134a from acceptable to identified other substitutes for use in agents; novelty products (including unacceptable for new stand-alone retail motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) propelled plastic party streamers, web food refrigerators and freezers, as well and other sectors, and claimed that string, artificial snow, specialty paints as changing the listing of a number of these other substitutes present much and excrement ‘‘poop’’ freeze); noise refrigerant blends with higher GWPs for lower risks to human health and horns (including marine safety noise new and retrofit stand-alone retail food environment than HFC–134a. refrigerators and freezers. On February 14, 2011, EPA found the horns, sporting event noise horns, petition complete for MVAC in new personal safety noise horns, wall- B. How Today’s Action Relates to passenger cars and light-duty vehicles mounted industrial noise horns used as Petitions alarms in factories and other work areas, and determined it was incomplete for This action primarily recognizes a call other uses of HFC–134a. EPA noted in and intruder noise horns used as alarms in homes and cars); foam and in the President’s Climate Action Plan its response that, at a future date, the announced June 2013: Agency would initiate a notice-and- refrigerants in new domestic comment rulemaking in response to the refrigerators and freezers and other To reduce emissions of HFCs, the United one complete aspect of the petition, retail stand-alone coolers and freezers; States can and will lead both through and cleaning fluids for noncommercial international diplomacy as well as domestic noting in particular that EPA would actions . . . Moving forward, the evaluate and take comment on many electronic, photographic, and other equipment. Environmental Protection Agency will use its factors, including, but not limited to, the authority through the Significant New timeframe for introduction of newer On August 7, 2012, EPA notified the Alternatives Policy Program to encourage substitutes for MVAC systems into the petitioner that this petition was private sector investment in low-emissions automotive market and potential lead incomplete. EPA and the petitioner have technology by identifying and approving time for manufacturers of motor exchanged further correspondence that climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting vehicles to accommodate substitutes. can be found in the docket. Although certain uses of the most harmful chemical This proposed rule responds to the EPA has found the petition incomplete, alternatives. aspect of that petition that we found EPA’s action in this proposal may be The Climate Action Plan also states ‘‘to complete. considered responsive to certain aspects reduce emissions of HFCs, the United On April 26, 2012, EPA received a of the petitions given EPA is proposing States can and will lead both through petition from EIA. EIA stated that, in to change the listing of certain HFCs international diplomacy as well as light of the comparative nature of the used in aerosols and foams from domestic actions.’’ This proposed rule is SNAP program’s evaluation of acceptable to unacceptable for most part of our domestic commitment to substitutes and given that other uses, and proposing to place use take action now and, by doing so, also acceptable substitutes are on the market conditions on the remaining aerosol supporting efforts to secure a global or soon to be available, EPA should uses. HFC phasedown. For the past five years, remove HFC–134a and HFC–134a A third petition was filed on April 27, the United States, Canada, and Mexico blends from the list of acceptable 2012, by NRDC, EIA and IGSD. They have proposed an amendment to the substitutes for uses where EPA found requested that EPA: Montreal Protocol to phase down the CFCs and HCFCs to be nonessential • Remove HFC–134a from the list of production and consumption of HFCs. under section 610 of the Act. EIA also acceptable substitutes for CFC–12 in Global benefits of the proposal would requested that the schedule for moving household refrigerators and freezers and yield significant reductions of over 90 HFC–134a and HFC–134a blends from gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent the list of acceptable to unacceptable 23 See, e.g., 60 FR at 31097. CO2eq through 2050. The United States,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46135

the European Union, Japan and other As noted previously, to date, EPA has criteria for evaluation, and the current countries are all taking actions that will considered approximately 400 suite of other available and potentially promote the uptake of low-GWP alternatives. This level of development available substitutes. alternatives and reduce use and work serves as a clear demonstration of EPA is proposing to modify the emissions of high-GWP HFCs. the efforts of industry to commercialize following listings by end-use: This proposal responds to the alternatives that continue to reduce (1) For aerosol propellants, we are President’s Climate Action Plan and overall risk and meet the needs of a proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 also addresses certain aspects of the wide range of consumers. • HFC–125 as unacceptable; three petitions referred to above. First, Throughout the process of our • HFC–134a as acceptable, subject to this action responds to the one aspect of discussions with the regulated use conditions, allowing its use only in the three petitions that EPA found community on the SNAP related aspects specific types of technical and medical complete, namely petitioners’ request of the President’s Climate Action Plan, aerosols (e.g. metered dose inhalers) that EPA change the listing of HFC–134a we have sought to convey our continued (and prohibiting its use in consumer from acceptable to unacceptable in new understanding of the role that certainty aerosols); and • MVACs. (See section V.B. in today’s plays in enabling this robust HFC–227ea as acceptable, subject to notice.) While EPA found all remaining development and uptake of alternatives. use conditions, allowing its use only in issues in the three petitions incomplete Unfortunately, some of the key strengths metered dose inhalers. with respect to the other end-uses, EPA of the SNAP program, such as its (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning has independently acquired sufficient chemical and end-use specific systems in newly manufactured light- duty vehicles, we are proposing to list information to address certain other consideration, its multi criteria basis for • requests made by the petitioners action, and its petition process tend to HFC–134a as unacceptable starting regarding listing high GWP HFCs as militate against some measures that with model year MY 2021; and • The refrigerant blends SP34E, R– unacceptable. Specifically, based on our could provide more certainty, such as 426A (also known as RS–24), R–416A review of the aerosols, foams, and air bright line cut offs. That being said we (also known as HCFC Blend Beta or conditioning and refrigeration sectors, do believe that the proposals we are FRIGC FR12), R–406A, R–414A (also we are proposing to revise the listings making today, and future proposals we known as HCFC Blend Xi or GHG–X4), for a number of substitutes from may make, may provide some R–414B (also known as HCFC Blend acceptable to acceptable subject to use guidelines on how EPA intends to apply Omicron), HCFC Blend Delta (also conditions, or unacceptable. (See specific criteria in individual end-uses. known as Free Zone), Freeze 12, GHG– sections V.A., V.C., and V.D. of today’s In addition, we remain committed to X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda (also notice.) These substitutes have high continuing our outreach efforts and to known as GHG–HP) as unacceptable GWPs as compared with other available sharing our thinking at the earliest starting with MY 2017. or potentially available substitutes in moment practicable on any future (3) For new and retrofit retail food those end–uses and pose significantly actions we might consider. Finally, and refrigeration (including stand-alone greater risk overall to human health and as it relates to potential future actions equipment, condensing units, direct the environment. EPA considers the that that EPA might consider under the supermarket systems, and indirect intersection between the specific HFC or SNAP program, the Agency continues to supermarket systems) and new and HFC blend and the particular end-use. welcome comments and ideas on retrofit vending machines, we are This action does not propose that any measures we might consider within the proposing to list, as of January 1, 2016 specific HFC be unacceptable across all SNAP context to provide greater • The HFC blends R–507A and R– sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not certainty to both producers and 404A as unacceptable. proposing that, for any specific sector, consumers in SNAP regulated industrial (4) For new and retrofit retail food the only acceptable substitutes are HFC- sectors. refrigeration (including direct free. EPA recognizes that both V. What is EPA proposing for HFCs? supermarket systems and indirect fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs and non- supermarket systems), we are proposing EPA is proposing to modify the fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes to list, as of January 1, 2016 are potentially acceptable. Instead, listings from acceptable to unacceptable • HFC–227ea, R–407B, R–421B, R– consistent with SNAP’s history and for certain HFCs and HFC blends in 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, EPA aerosol, foam blowing, and air R–434A as unacceptable. is proposing these modifications, and conditioning and refrigerant end-uses (5) For new stand-alone retail food will consider future modifications, where other alternatives are available or refrigeration and new vending based on the substitutes being potentially available that pose overall machines, we are proposing to list, as of considered, the SNAP criteria for lower risk. Per the guiding principle January 1, 2016 evaluation, and the current suite of stated above, EPA is considering the • HFC–134a and certain other HFC other available and potentially available intersection between the specific HFC or refrigerant blends as unacceptable. substitutes in specific sectors and end- HFC blend and the particular end-use. (6) For foam blowing agents, we are uses. This action does not propose that any proposing to list, as of January 1, 2017, EPA recently issued a proposed rule specific HFCs be unacceptable across all except where allowed under a narrowed (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811) that would sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not use limit, list as acceptable subject to use proposing that, for any specific sector, • HFC–134a and blends thereof as conditions a group of refrigeration and the only acceptable substitutes are HFC- unacceptable in all foam-blowing end- air-conditioning alternatives that have free. EPA recognizes that both uses; been submitted and reviewed under the fluorinated (e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non- • HFC–143a, HFC–245fa and HFC– SNAP program. That rule would fluorinated (e.g., HCs, CO2) substitutes 365mfc and blends thereof, and the HFC enhance the SNAP menu of acceptable are potentially acceptable. Instead, blends Formacel B, and Formacel Z–6 as alternatives for a number of related end- consistent with SNAP’s history and unacceptable in all foam blowing end- uses by proposing to add several CAA Section 612, EPA is proposing uses where they are currently listed as alternatives as acceptable subject to use these modifications based on the acceptable, except for spray foam conditions. substitutes being considered, the SNAP applications; and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

• The HFC blend Formacel TI as and materials from trade associations with, CFCs and HCFCs—except those unacceptable in all foam blowing end- and professional organizations. The specifically exempted by the uses where it is currently listed as materials on which we have relied may regulations—are banned from sale and acceptable. be found in the docket for this action. distribution in interstate commerce in In general, the dates in this proposal Key references are highlighted in the United States. As a result of the for modifying the SNAP listings are section IX of today’s notice. Nonessential Products Ban, most aerosol based on information concerning the products have been using low-GWP availability of alternatives with lower A. Aerosols alternatives with no ozone depletion overall risk to human health and the 1. Background potential since the early 1990s. environment for the end-uses The SNAP program provides listings considered. EPA is requesting comment 2. Aerosols today for two aerosol end-uses: propellants on the proposed dates. As noted in the Following the 1994 ban on the sale and solvents. Aerosols typically use a Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion in and distribution of aerosols using liquefied or compressed gas to propel section IX of this preamble, EPA would HCFCs, HCFC propellants were replaced like information on technical challenges active ingredients in liquid, paste, or with a range of alternatives including that may exist. EPA is particularly powder form. In the case of duster HFCs (e.g., HFC–134a, HFC–152a), HCs, interested in information concerning the sprays used to blow dust and compressed gases, and not-in-kind supply of substitutes in sufficient contaminants off of surfaces, the alternatives. HCFC solvents were quantities to meet the dates proposed in propellant is also itself the active replaced by HFC–43–10mee, HFC– this action. EPA notes that several of the ingredient. Some aerosols also contain a 365mfc, HFC–245fa, HCs, oxygenated end-uses could be broken down further. solvent, which may be used in organic compounds, hydrofluoroethers EPA could consider adopting temporary manufacturing, maintenance and repair (HFEs), and trans-dichloroethylene narrowed use limits for a specific to clean off oil, grease, and other soils. (typically blended with an HFC or HFE application of an end-use if the Agency Historically, a variety of propellants to reduce flammability of the determined that substitutes would be and solvents have been available to formulation). Other acceptable low- available for all but that specific formulators. HCs (e.g., propane, GWP fluorinated compounds include application as of a particular date. For isobutane) and compressed gases (e.g., HFOs. HFO–1234ze(E) is in use and other applications in that end-use, the CO2, N2, N2O, compressed air) have long under development for use in the rule would list the substitute as been used as propellants. Prior to 1978, aerosol industry as a propellant for unacceptable as of that date. For the the aerosol industry predominantly manufacturing aerosol products. EPA specific application at issue, the rule used CFCs. CFCs were excellent regulations issued pursuant to CAA could contain both a temporary propellants because of their ability to section 605 prohibit the use of HCFC– narrowed use limit with an expiration produce a fine spray, their non- 22 and HCFC–142b for manufacturing date and a listing as unacceptable upon flammability, their ability to be stored aerosol products. 40 CFR 82.15(g). EPA the expiration of the narrowed use limit. under low pressure, and their low has proposed regulations addressing the While the temporary narrowed use limit reactivity with other ingredients. In use after January 1, 2015 of other HCFCs was in place, only persons using a 1978, in response to evidence regarding in aerosol products (e.g., HCFC–225ca/ substitute in the end-use for that depletion of the earth’s ozone layer, the cb), as well as other provisions related specific application would be United States banned CFC propellants. to the phaseout of HCFCs under section considered to not be in violation of These regulations did not address 605 of the CAA (December 24, 2013; 78 section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP HCFCs or solvent uses. For example, FR 78072). regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). In CFC–113 and methyl chloroform The United States aerosol industry addition, any such end user would need continued to be used as solvents in manufactures aerosol products in the to comply with the requirement to aerosols and HCFCs continued to be following three categories: (1) Consumer analyze and document that there are no used. aerosols, (2) technical aerosols, and (3) other alternatives that are technically Many consumer products that medical aerosols. Consumer aerosols feasible for their specific end-use. To previously used CFC propellants were includes products for personal and support the adoption of a temporary reformulated or replaced with a variety household use. Examples include narrowed use limit for a specific of alternatives, including not-in-kind personal care products, such as: application of an end-use in the final substitutes, such as pump sprays or Cosmetics, hairspray, body sprays, and rule, commenters should explain why solid and roll-on deodorants. Aerosol deodorants; automotive products such other alternatives would not be propellant substitutes included HCFCs, as tire inflators, auto lubricants, and available for the specific application of HCs, HFCs, compressed gases, and brake cleaners; noise horns and safety that end-use and for what period of oxygenated organic compounds. HCFCs horns; animal repellants; spray time. are controlled substances under the adhesives with various applications; In determining whether to modify the Montreal Protocol and subject to household cleaning products; hand-held listing decisions for substitutes based on regulation under the CAA including a spray paint cans; eyeglass and keyboard whether other alternatives are available phaseout of production and import dusters; consumer freeze sprays (e.g. that pose lower risk to human health under section 605(b)-(c) and use chewing gum or excrement removal); air and the environment, we considered, restrictions under section 605(a). fresheners; food dispensing products; among other things: scientific findings, In 1993, EPA issued regulations that and novelty aerosols (e.g., artificial information provided by the Technology implemented CAA section 610’s snow, plastic string, noise makers, and and Economic Assessment Panel that Congressionally mandated ban on the cork poppers). supports the Montreal Protocol, journal sale and distribution or offer for sale Technical aerosols are aerosol articles, submissions to the SNAP and distribution of certain non-essential products for sale and use solely in program, the regulations and supporting products containing ozone-depleting commercial and industrial applications, dockets for other EPA rulemakings, substances (40 CFR Part 82 Subpart C). not for normal day-to-day consumer use presentations and reports presented at All aerosol products and pressurized or medical use. Technical aerosols domestic and international conferences, dispensers containing, or manufactured includes industrial cleaners (e.g.,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46137

electronic contact cleaners, brake • EPA is proposing to change the respective exposure limits when used as cleaners, flux removers, degreasers); listing for the aerosol propellant HFC– aerosol propellants. In addition to GWP pesticides (e.g., certain wasp and hornet 125 from acceptable to unacceptable. and climate impacts, some of the other sprays, aircraft insecticides); a subset of • We are proposing to list the aerosol environmental and health attributes that dusters (e.g., for photographic negatives, propellant HFC–134a as acceptable, the SNAP program considers that differ semiconductor chip manufacture, subject to use conditions allowing its for these alternatives include impacts on specimens for observation under use only in the following: Cleaning local air quality and flammability. For electron microscope); and spinnerette products for removal of grease, flux and example, butane, propane, isobutane, lubricant/cleaning sprays. Technical other soils from electrical equipment or and DME are VOCs as well as being aerosols also includes other electronics; lubricants for electrical flammable. Butane, propane, isobutane, miscellaneous products such as equipment or electronics; sprays for and DME are defined as VOCs under industrial spray paints and document aircraft maintenance; pesticides for use CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) preservation sprays. near electrical wires, in aircraft, in total addressing the development of state release insecticide foggers, or in Medical aerosols are for sale and use implementation plans (SIPs) to attain certified organic use pesticides for and maintain the national ambient air for medical purposes and include, but which EPA has specifically disallowed quality standards; thus, these are not limited to, products regulated by all other lower-GWP propellants; mold propellants are subject to federal, state, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration release agents; lubricants and cleaners and local regulation that may prevent (FDA). Medical aerosols include for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; their use as a propellant in aerosols in metered dose inhalers for the treatment duster sprays specifically for removal of some states and counties that have of asthma and chronic obstructive dust from photographic negatives, nonattainment areas for ground-level pulmonary disease, calamine spray, semiconductor chips, and specimens ozone. HFC–125, HFC–134a, HFC– anti-fungals, wart treatments, wound under electron microscopes; document 227ea, HFC–152a, HFO–1234ze(E), and care sprays, freeze or coolant spray for preservation sprays; metered dose the compressed gases CO2 and N2 are pain relief, spray-on ‘‘liquid’’ bandages, inhalers for the treatment of asthma, not defined as VOCs under these and products for removing bandage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, regulations and their use is expected to adhesives. allergic rhinitis, and other diseases have negligible impact on ground-level Some aerosols could be considered where aerosols can be used for systemic ozone levels. under more than one of the categories delivery through lung, nose, or other described above. For example, insect organs; wound care sprays; topical i. Consumer Aerosols sprays include products with both coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and For consumer aerosols, there are three commercial and consumer applications. products for removing bandage alternatives with lower GWPs that meet The commercial application would adhesives from skin. other environmental regulatory include insect sprays used by utility • EPA is also proposing to list HFC– requirements: HFC–152a, which has a power line workers around high tension 227ea as acceptable, subject to use GWP of 124; HFO–1234ze(E) with a power lines (i.e., a technical aerosol) conditions, allowing its use only in GWP of 6; and CO2 with a GWP of 1. and the consumer use would include metered dose inhalers. All three have GWPs significantly lower residential household insect repellant a. What other alternatives are than those of the HFCs proposed to be commonly sold to homeowners (i.e., a available? unacceptable or subject to use consumer aerosol). Another example is EPA is proposing to change the listing conditions (range of GWPs from 1430 to freeze sprays which may be either decisions for HFC–125, HFC–134a, and 3500 for HFC–134a, HFC–227ea and consumer aerosols (e.g., food freeze HFC–227ea as of January 1, 2016 HFC–125). These three substitutes also sprays, animal waste sprays) or medical because safer alternatives (i.e., chemical provide a range of performance based on aerosols (e.g., wart removers, pain compounds and technological options) vapor pressure, which is important relievers). are available or potentially available because it affects the ability to propel that reduces the overall risk to human the necessary ingredients out of the Most of the demand for consumer health and the environment. Other aerosol container. The vapor pressures aerosols in the United States is substitutes listed as acceptable of HFO–1234ze(E), HFC–152a, and CO2 concentrated within household propellants include HFC–152a, HFO– at 20 °C are 422 kPa, 510 kPa, and 5776 consumer products. This category has 1234ze(E), butane, propane, isobutane, kPa, respectively. the highest production volume, CO2 and other compressed gases, and reporting a 2.4% increase from 2010 to dimethyl ether (DME). In addition, ii. Technical Aerosols 2011 (CSPA 2012). The NAICS code that technological options include not-in- Technical aerosols sometimes need to includes many personal care products kind alternatives such as finger/trigger meet more rigorous requirements for (325620) is the highest grossing NAICS pumps, powder formulations, sticks, selection because of performance category of those that EPA has identified rollers, brushes, and wipes. These demands that do not exist for most as manufacturing consumer aerosols alternatives have GWPs ranging from consumer aerosols. For example, (ICF 2014a). Some of the dominant zero to 124 compared with HFC–134a’s nonflammable aerosols are needed for consumer aerosols includes air GWP of 1,430, HFC–227ea’s GWP of use on energized electrical circuits, fresheners, deodorants, household 3,220 and HFC–125’s GWP of 3,500.24 where sparking can create a fire or cleaners, and hairspray. All of these alternatives have an ODP of explosion hazard. Of the different 3. What is EPA proposing concerning zero, are relatively low in toxicity, and acceptable alternatives, the aerosols? are capable of remaining below their nonflammable options at room temperature include HFC–125, HFC– Today’s action addresses HFCs in 24 GWP values cited in this proposal are from the 134a, HFC–227ea, HFO–1234ze(E) and propellants in aerosols. EPA is IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) unless stated compressed gases including CO2 and N2. proposing to modify the listings for otherwise. Where no GWP is listed in AR4, GWP At slightly higher temperatures (30 °C or values shall be determined consistent with the ° HFC–125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea as calculations and analysis presented in AR4 and 85 F), HFO–1234ze(E) exhibits lower of January 1, 2016 as follows: referenced materials. and higher flammability limits and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46139

required to perform an evaluation and subject to use conditions allowing its Finally, we request comments on would not be required keep paperwork use only in: cleaning products for modifying the listings as of January 1, to document their evaluation, thereby removal of grease, flux and other soils 2016. We request commenters include reducing regulatory burden. A potential from electrical equipment or electronics; specific information on whether it advantage of setting narrowed use limits lubricants for electrical equipment or would be technically feasible for end- is that it may encourage a larger number electronics; sprays for aircraft users to transition by January 1, 2016, of manufacturers and users to evaluate maintenance; pesticides for use near and, if not, what steps are necessary for alternatives and potentially identify electrical wires, in aircraft, in total manufacturers to switch to other more uses where HFC–134a is not release insecticide foggers, or in alternatives and how long those steps required. Further, establishing narrowed certified organic use pesticides for are expected to take. use limits may allow greater flexibility which EPA has specifically disallowed B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning for if there are additional types of technical all other lower-GWP propellants; mold Newly Manufactured Light-Duty Motor or medical aerosol products with release agents; lubricants and cleaners Vehicles performance or safety constraints for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics; requiring HFC–134a that EPA has not duster sprays specifically for removal of 1. Background identified in this proposal. EPA requests dust from photographic negatives, MVAC systems cool passenger cars, comment on these two approaches to semiconductor chips, and specimens light duty trucks, buses, and rail modifying the listings of HFC–134a and under electron microscopes; document vehicles. CFC–12 refrigerant was HFC–227ea as aerosol propellants. preservation sprays; metered dose historically used in MVAC systems. c. When would the modified listings inhalers for the treatment of asthma, HFC–134a replaced CFC–12 in new apply? chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, equipment in the early 1990s. Today, EPA is proposing January 1, 2016 as allergic rhinitis, and other diseases the date on which the listings for HFC– HFC–134a is the dominant refrigerant where aerosols can be used for systemic used in light-duty vehicles worldwide. 125, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea would delivery through lung, nose, or other be modified. Thus products When EPA found HFC–134a acceptable organs; wound care sprays; topical in MVAC for light duty vehicles in 1994 manufactured on or after January 1, coolant sprays for pain alleviation; and 2016 in contravention of the (March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044), the products for removing bandage Agency stated: unacceptable or acceptable subject to adhesives from skin; and HFC–227ea use conditions listing for these from acceptable to acceptable, subject to HFC–134a does not contribute to ozone depletion. HFC–134a’s GWP and atmospheric substitutes could not be used. use conditions, allowing its use only in We are proposing this date because lifetime are close to those of other metered dose inhalers. we believe it is expeditious but will alternatives which have been determined to allow sufficient time after this proposed EPA also received suggestions from be acceptable for this end-use. However, HFC–134a’s contribution to global warming rule for end users to make the transition the aerosol industry to consider an exception to allow the use of HFC–134a could be significant in leaky end-uses such to alternatives. Based on the information as MVACs. EPA has determined that the use available to EPA today and on various in additional categories of aerosol of HFC–134a in these applications is discussions with industry products. EPA is not proposing to acceptable because industry continues to representatives. EPA believes that include these categories, either because develop technology to limit emissions. In formulators and packagers of aerosols we are aware of existing products in addition, the number of substitutes available can make the necessary changes within these categories using low GWP for use in MVACs is currently limited. HFC– this timing (ICF, 2014a; Honeywell, propellants, or because we have 134a is not flammable and its toxicity is low. 2014). In most cases, EPA believes it insufficient information indicating that This analysis was consistent with the will take approximately six months for the use of HFC–134a is necessary for information available in 1994. Since the necessary changes to be made. This these categories of products because that time, four additional substitutes timing would provide the affected other substitutes that pose lower risk are have been added to the list of aerosol manufacturers and packagers not currently or potentially available. substitutes that are acceptable subject to sufficient time to change and test These categories include: component use conditions for light duty vehicles. formulations and, to the extent freeze sprays, tissue freezes, As described more fully below, if these necessary, to change the equipment in refrigeration system flushes, portable other substitutes are used in systems their factories. safety horns for use in marine and designed consistent with the prescribed To prevent stranded inventory, we are industrial applications, tire inflators, use conditions, they pose significantly proposing that products manufactured and personal defense sprays. We are lower risk to human health and the prior to January 1, 2016 using these aware of low-GWP formulations already environment than HFC–134a. EPA is propellants, could be still be sold, on the market today for defensive sprays therefore proposing to remove HFC– imported, exported, and used by the end and tissue freezes. These formulations 134a from the list of acceptable user after January 1, 2016. This would may use flammable and/or non- substitutes for new light-duty vehicles’ avoid the possibility that end users flammable propellants. We request MVAC systems and add it to the list of would need to dispose of a usable information on why available unacceptable substitutes. product, including the potential for substitutes other than HFC–134a are not Since 1994, additional alternatives for improper releases of the content into the and cannot be used in these categories MVACs have been listed as acceptable environment. of products, including information on subject to use conditions.25 Three of why flammability may be a concern or these alternatives—HFO–1234yf, HFC– d. On which topics is EPA requesting not in the product category; whether 152a, and carbon dioxide (R–744)—are comment? other alternative propellants with lower non-ozone depleting like HFC–134a and EPA requests comment on the GWP in place of HFC–134a have been have low GWPs compared to HFC–134a. proposal to change the listing for the tested in these products; and what HFC–152a has a GWP of 124, HFO– following aerosol propellants: HFC–125 results of those tests have shown about 1234yf has a GWP of 4, and R–744 (by from acceptable to unacceptable; HFC– the technical feasibility and/or safety of 134a from acceptable to acceptable, the other alternative propellants. 25 Listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

definition) has a GWP of 1 while HFC– in addition to HFC–134a: SP34E (GWP Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) as 134a has a GWP of 1,430. R–744 is of 1300), R–426A (also known as RS–24) unacceptable beginning in MY 2017 for nonflammable, HFO–1234yf and HFC– (GWP of 1508), R–416A (also known as use in MVAC systems in newly 152a are flammable, but are subject to HCFC Blend Beta or FRIGC FR12) (GWP manufactured light-duty motor vehicles. use conditions that address of 1015) and the HCFC blends, R–406A, Since these refrigerant blends are not flammability concerns. All three R–414A (also known as HCFC Blend Xi currently in use in any MVAC systems substitutes are subject to use restrictions or GHG–X4), R–414B (also known as in light-duty vehicles, we believe it is that ensure exposure limits that protect HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Blend appropriate for the unacceptability against adverse health effects will not be Delta (also known as Free Zone), Freeze determination to apply to model year exceeded and all three are VOC exempt. 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda vehicles currently being designed. At the time EPA listed HFC–134a as (also known as GHG–HP), with GWPs Further, all but the first two of these acceptable, the agency was not aware of ranging from 1480 to 2340 and ODPs blends have ODPs, and all have any vehicle manufacturer, MVAC ranging from 0.012 to 0.056. For significantly higher GWPs than other supplier, or chemical producer simplicity, we refer to these substitutes alternatives such as HFC–152a, HFO– considering HFO–1234yf as a as ‘‘the refrigerant blends’’ in the 1234yf, and CO2. refrigerant. Today, HFO–1234yf is in following discussion. EPA has previously examined when automobile manufacturers may be able use in MVAC systems in approximately 2. What is EPA proposing regarding use nine 26 models in the United States by to transition their fleets to lower GWP of HFC–134a and use of refrigerant refrigerants in its rules to extend the several manufacturers of light-duty blends in MVAC systems for newly vehicles. EPA expects additional models greenhouse gas and fuel economy manufactured light-duty motor standards for model year (MY) 2017– will be introduced using HFO–1234yf vehicles? systems over the next several years. 2025 light-duty vehicles. 77 FR 62624, To date, at least one global EPA is proposing to list HFC–134a as 62807–810 (October 15, 2012); see also manufacturer of light-duty vehicles has unacceptable for use in MVAC systems 75 FR 25325, 25431–32 (May 7, 2010) announced their intention to in newly manufactured light-duty (discussing the same issue for MY 2012– commercialize vehicles using R–744 in vehicles beginning with MY 2021. We 2016 light duty vehicles). EPA and the MVAC systems later this decade.27 In are proposing MY 2021 because that is National Highway Traffic Safety the mid-1990s, EPA became aware that the time by which all light-duty vehicle Administration jointly issued these R–744 systems might be a feasible models can be redesigned to safely use rules on August 28, 2012. Over the alternative in this application, but the MVAC systems using other available lifetime of the MY 2017–2025 light-duty state of research and development refrigerants. As explained above, three vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty indicated that it was not yet available alternatives on the SNAP list of trucks, and medium-duty passenger because a design had not yet been acceptable substitutes subject to use vehicles), these rules are projected to developed that would allow safe use in conditions —HFC–152a, R–744, and save approximately 4 billion barrels of MVAC systems in light duty vehicles. HFO–1234yf—have significantly lower oil and 2 billion metric tons of GHG Nearly 20 years later, EPA is still not GWPs than HFC–134a. All three of these emissions, with societal net benefits up aware of current commercial use of R– lower-GWP alternatives are non-ozone to $451 billion. 77 FR 62629. The depleting and are subject to use 744 in MVAC systems. However, standards build off those set in April restrictions that ensure exposure limits significant research and development is 2010 for MY 2012–2016 light-duty that protect against adverse health occurring in order to ensure R–744 can vehicles, which are projected to save effects will not be exceeded. All three be used safely in MVAC systems. approximately 1.85 billion barrels of oil are VOC exempt. HFO–1234yf and In addition to HFO–1234yf, HFC– and 962 million metric tons of GHG HFC–152a are flammable, but are 152a, and R–744, EPA is aware of emissions over the lifetime of the subject to use conditions that address ongoing research and development affected vehicles, with societal net flammability concerns. R–744 is not which could ultimately result in future benefits of up to $192 billion. 75 FR flammable. Because HFC–134a has a listings of additional alternatives for 25347. EPA projects that the entire light- significantly higher GWP than HFC– MVAC systems. One chemical producer duty vehicle fleet will meet a target of 152a, R–744, and HFO–1234yf and indicated their intent to seek SNAP 163 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent because the risks posed by these three approval for another low-GWP (CO2eq) per mile in MY 2025 (or 54.5 refrigerants are addressed through use alternative that is a blend with a GWP mpg if the automotive industry meets 28 conditions, we are proposing to list the target exclusively through fuel below 150. HFC–134a as unacceptable. However, There are also other blends which efficiency improvements). because the three refrigerant alternatives When refrigerants leak from current EPA has listed as acceptable or pose lower risk than HFC–134a only if motor vehicle air conditioning systems, acceptable subject to use conditions. used consistent with the established use they contribute to overall GHG None of these are currently used by the conditions, in deciding when the emissions. Using lower GWP original equipment manufacturers unacceptability determination should refrigerants can significantly reduce the (OEMs). Several of these previously apply, we considered the date by which climate impact of these emissions. listed substitutes have GWPs that are automobile manufacturers will be able Given the increasing availability of significantly higher than the GWPS for to redesign all vehicle models lower-GWP chemicals suitable for this HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744 and (including design of the MVAC systems) purpose and systems that can use them, higher overall risk than these other three consistent with the use conditions. as well as increasing requirement for substitutes. EPA is proposing to list as EPA is proposing to list the refrigerant lower-GWP refrigerants in Europe,29 unacceptable the following substitutes blends SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– EPA based the light-duty GHG standards 406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC 26 http://www.autonews.com/article/20131230/ Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also 29 Directive 2006/40/EC of the European OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (EU 27 known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC Daimler, 2014 MAC Directive). Available at: http://eur- 28 Mexichem statement during motor vehicle Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ stakeholder meeting December 6, 2013 Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040:EN:HTML.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46141

for MYs 2017–2025 in part on an they plan any significant technological of the transition in the 1990s from CFC– expected gradual transition to lower- changes to that vehicle. Between the 12 to HFC–134a, where the systems had GWP refrigerants. Thus, in setting the major redesign model years, they may similar coefficients of performance and level of the standards, EPA projected make only minor ‘‘refresh’’ changes. manufacturers were able to switch many that the industry will make the full Redesign cycles vary by model and by vehicles mid-cycle. Vehicles that transition to lower-GWP refrigerants manufacturer and average about 5 require relatively more cooling capacity over the period of time spanning model years in duration. (See 77 FR will be more dependent on a redesign between MY 2017 and MY 2021, and 62712 and 75 FR 25407, 25451 for a cycle for a transition to HFO–1234yf the level of the standard in each of these more detailed discussion of this since the specifications for hardware model years reflects a projected 20 practice.) At any point in time, a would need to be revisited. Most percent increase in substitution in each manufacturer may have some vehicles at manufacturers have ‘‘locked-in’’ their model year and complete transition by or approaching a major redesign point planned product designs out to MY MY 2021. 77 FR 62720/2–3. In support and others that are earlier in their 2016, MY 2017, or even MY 2018. If any of the assumption of this multi-year product cycle. of these manufacturers have not transition, the Light-Duty GHG rule for In the final rule establishing light- planned to implement alternative MYs 2017–2025 includes an extensive duty vehicle GHG standards for MYs refrigerant systems in these late model discussion of the refrigerant substitute 2017–2025, EPA assumed that the year vehicles, the next design cycle availability and technical feasibility of transition to alternative refrigerants opportunity to make a change would be transitioning the fleet. 77 FR 62720; would generally occur during unlikely to occur until MY 2021 (or 62807–810. manufacturer model redesigns and used even MY 2022). In addition, at least one At the time the Light Duty GHG rule the overall typical industry redesign manufacturer has stated that it plans on was promulgated, EPA (and other cycle of 5 model years to estimate how using R–744 (CO2) systems. R–744 entities) voiced concerns with the the expected industry-wide transition to systems require significantly more potential supply of HFO–1234yf, but new refrigerants might occur. For complex redesign and hardware and today production plans for the analytical purposes, and based on would need to occur during product refrigerant appear to be in place to make information available at the time, we redesign, not product refresh given its it available in volumes that meet current projected that the transition would pressure is significantly different than and projected domestic auto industry occur from MY 2017 until MY 2021. HFC–134a. These systems are currently demand, consistent with the projections EPA recognizes there have been some in prototype phase, and there are in the Light Duty GHG rulemaking. early adopters. The transition began in significant technical hurdles yet to Multiple production facilities are now a small number of MY 2013 vehicles overcome. Given EPA’s understanding, producing HFO–1234yf, and recently and is increasing in MY 2014 but has above, of the supply of the alternative another global chemical producer been relatively limited to date.31 While refrigerants and the redesign cycle for announced plans to produce HFO– some may maintain that early adoption MVAC systems, EPA is proposing to list 1234yf by 2017. Moreover, some equates to a faster overall transition, HFC–134a as unacceptable for new automotive manufacturers are EPA notes that early adoption remains MVAC systems beginning with MY 2021 developing systems that can safely use limited and therefore we continue to because this is the time by which all other substitutes, including R–744, and view our projection of full transition not light-duty vehicle models can be continued progress is likely given the occurring until MY 2021 as reasonable. redesigned to safely use MVAC systems EU’s implementation of the MAC Although there may be some limited with alternative refrigerants. Directive. If some global light-duty ability to switch a vehicle model to an As a cross-check, EPA explored motor vehicle manufacturers use R–744, MVAC system using a low GWP whether vehicles and MVAC systems additional volumes of HFO–1234yf that refrigerant in between redesign periods, designed consistent with the use would have been used by those most model types will require conditions for the three alternative manufacturers will then become significant hardware changes that may refrigerants might be available earlier available. Therefore, there also appears only be possible during a redesign. than MY 2021, evaluating (but not to be sufficient supply to meet demand HFO–1234yf, for example, has proposing) MYs 2017 and 2019. MY domestically and abroad, including in measurably lower efficiency than that of 2017 is the date included in the petition the European Union, during this time HFC–134a, usually requiring hardware described above and in the EU MAC frame. changes and/or changes to overall air Directive. Since most motor vehicle In addition to considering when the conditioning system design and manufacturers will seek a global vehicle supply of alternative refrigerants would layout.32 33 This contrasts with the case design platform, selecting the same date be sufficient to transition the entire light as the date in the EU MAC Directive has duty vehicle fleet, EPA necessarily also 31 Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new some weight. MY 2019 is an considered when vehicle manufacturers refrigerant will accelerate with EPA credits, intermediate date between MYs 2017 could design systems for safe use of European mandate’’ Automobile News, December and 2021. these alternatives consistent with the 30, 2013. http://www.autonews.com/article/ 20131230/OEM01/312309996/warming-to-the-idea. The agency believes it is necessary for regulatory use conditions.30 EPA 32 Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces Challenges MVAC system redesigns for many considered the practices used by the From Daimler R–1234yf Issue, Explores Other vehicles to occur during a design cycle auto manufacturing industry in Options,’’ Automotive Engineering International, to safely use the substitute refrigerants, introducing new technologies into their April 2, 2013. as just explained. Manufacturers are vehicles. For each vehicle model, 33 One manufacturer informed EPA in a meeting that hardware changes were necessary or likely currently designing or have ‘‘locked in’’ manufacturers establish a ‘‘redesign’’ (or when shifting from a HFC–134a to a HFO–1234yf designs for vehicles several model years product development) cycle over which system, including the following: compressor oil into the future. The information and/or compressor changes, possible A/C piping currently before the Agency thus 30 As previously noted, HFO–1234yf, R–744 and modification due to the change in valve shape, and, indicates that it would not be HFC–152a are all listed as acceptable subject to use in the vehicle manufacturing plant, additional conditions and many of the use conditions address refrigerant charging process changes. (EPA the design of systems to account for the Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting with Nissan Wysor, April 2014.) Other manufacturers made flammability or exposure. Concerning Alternative Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad similar statements to EPA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

technically feasible for manufacturers to vehicle design as well as the MVAC We do note, however, that today’s safely transition all vehicles from HFC– design may need to be modified in order proposal is relevant to one of the 134a MVACs by MY 2017. EPA is not to ensure the refrigerant can be used compliance flexibilities in the light duty proposing the MY 2019 date for the safely. For that reason, the three low- vehicle standards. The light duty same reasons. However, we solicit GWP refrigerants that currently are vehicle standards do not require any comment on whether all manufacturers listed as acceptable in new MVACs— specific means of compliance. would be able to safely transition all HFO–1234yf, HFC–152a, and R–744–are Manufacturers thus have the flexibility vehicles away from HFC–134a MVAC not listed as acceptable to retrofit a to either switch refrigerants or to systems by MY 2017 or MY 2019. system designed to use a different comply with the standards by other We also considered whether a MY refrigerant. means. The light duty standards do later than MY 2021 should be the Once MVAC systems are designed provide that manufacturers can generate appropriate time for use of HFC–134a in and installed with lower GWP credits from use of alternative MVAC systems in new vehicles to be substitutes, they will likely need to be refrigerants with lower GWPs than that listed as unacceptable. In recent serviced. Some stakeholders have of HFC–134a through MY 2025, and the meetings with the major trade expressed a concern that the price ability to generate and use those credits associations for the auto industry (the differential between HFO–1234yf and towards compliance with the light duty Alliance and Global Automakers) as HFC–134a provides an economic standards will not change if this action well as with meetings with several incentive to replace HFO–1234yf with is finalized as proposed. See 77 FR individual manufacturers, industry HFC–134a during servicing. See 77 FR 62804–809. (As noted above, the level of representatives indicated that some of 62807. Two sets of regulations under the standard reflects the assumption of them may have a relatively small title VI of the CAA make it clear that 100% substitution by MY 2021). Even number of vehicle models that will not doing so is unlawful. First, the SNAP though a manufacturer may choose to have had the opportunity for an regulations prohibit using a substitute comply with the light duty standard by engineering redesign by MY 2021. They refrigerant to ‘top-off’ a system that uses a strategy not involving refrigerant also indicated that there may be another refrigerant. Second, the original substitution, in MY 2021, this proposed technical barriers for certain models that refrigerant must be recovered in rule, if finalized, would still require the would require longer product design accordance with regulations issued manufacturer to use an MVAC designed cycles if the systems were to use under section 609 of the CAA prior to for a refrigerant other than HFC–134a. substitute refrigerants. However, we do charging with a substitute (40 CFR not have sufficient non-confidential 82.34). Thus, the recycling and recovery C. Retail Food Refrigeration and information to conclude that systems regulations prohibit adding a new Vending Machines capable of using alternative refrigerant refrigerant to the system without first 1. Background safely will not be ‘‘currently or recovering the refrigerant already in the Retail food refrigeration, an end-use potentially available’’—within the system. Therefore, it is not permissible within the SNAP program that is also meaning of section 612 (c)(2) of the to add HFC–134a to an MVAC system considered a subset of the broader term Act—until after MY 2021. EPA requests that contains HFO–1234yf, as may well ‘‘commercial refrigeration,’’ is comments on changing the status of occur if a consumer were to service his characterized by storing and displaying, HFC–134a in a model year later than or her own car’s A/C system without generally for sale, food and beverages at MY 2021 (such as MY 2025), including refrigerant recovery equipment. In different temperatures for different specific information supporting claims addition, the SNAP listings for HFO– products (e.g., chilled and frozen food). that a transition by MY 2021 would not 1234yf and HFC–134a require the use of The designs and refrigerating capacities be technically feasible because specific unique fittings for each alternative of equipment vary widely. Vending model vehicles cannot be redesigned to refrigerant. Using an adapter or machines are another subset of safely use alternative refrigerants by deliberately modifying a fitting to use a commercial refrigeration considered as a MY2021. For the reasons explained different refrigerant is a violation of separate end-use within the SNAP earlier, EPA believes safer alternatives these use conditions. program due to differences in where will be available by MY 2021. EPA seeks comments on changing the such equipment is placed and the Based on the information before the listing of SP34E, R–426A, R–416A, R– additional mechanical and electronic Agency, EPA is thus proposing to 406A, R–414A (also known as HCFC components required to accept modify the listing of HFC–134a to Blend Xi or GHG–X4), R–414B (also payment, provide the selected product, unacceptable as of MY 2021 for light known as HCFC Blend Omicron), HCFC and prevent theft or damage from duty vehicles, while seeking comment Blend Delta (also known as Free Zone), vandalism. on MYs 2017, 2019, and MYs later than Freeze 12, GHG–X5, and HCFC Blend Retail food refrigeration is composed 2021.34 Lambda (also known as GHG–HP) to of three main categories of equipment: EPA is not proposing changes that unacceptable for use as refrigerants in Stand-alone equipment; condensing would alter the ability to service air conditioning systems for newly units; and supermarket systems, the existing motor vehicles designed to use manufactured light-duty motor vehicles latter often in designs referred to as HFC–134a. Such a change could strand beginning with MY 2017 and changing multiplex or centralized refrigeration the installed base of equipment or force the listing of HFC–134a to unacceptable systems. Stand-alone equipment retrofits to other refrigerants. In order to beginning with MY 2021. consists of refrigerators, freezers, and safely use most MVAC refrigerants, the 3. Would this action affect EPA’s light reach-in coolers (either open or with duty vehicle rule? doors) where all refrigeration 34 Typically, regulations promulgated under CAA Title VI have applied to specified calendar years, Today’s proposal, should EPA adopt components are integrated and, for the However, because the MVAC system used is so it, will have no direct effect on the MY smallest types, the refrigeration circuit closely related to vehicle design, we have used MY 2017–2025 light duty vehicle GHG is entirely brazed or welded. These for purposes of this proposed rule. Model years systems are charged with refrigerant at cover almost two calendar years, beginning after standards. Those standards are January 1 of the previous calendar year and ending established by rule and EPA is not the factory and typically require only an on January 1 of the following calendar year. reopening that rule in this proceeding. electricity supply to begin operation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46143

Condensing units exhibit refrigerating refrigerant charge, reducing the conditions for vending machines (July, capacities ranging typically from 1 kW potential for refrigerant to be released 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). Other substitutes, to 20 kW (0.3 to 5.7 refrigeration tons). from leaks or catastrophic failures. such as blends of saturated HFCs They are composed of one (and Cascade systems use a compressor to already listed as acceptable under sometimes two) compressor(s), one raise the low-temperature coolant from SNAP, are currently in use in the United condenser, and one receiver assembled low-temperature conditions up to an States, while HFOs and blends into a single unit, which is normally intermediate temperature while a containing HFOs are being developed located external to the sales area. This separate refrigerant system uses a and tested but have not yet been equipment is connected to one or more different refrigerant to condense the submitted to the SNAP program for nearby evaporator(s) used to cool food coolant. Each system within the cascade review. and beverages stored in display cases design contains its own refrigerant The most commonly-used HFCs and and/or walk-in storage rooms. charge allowing the use of different HFC blends in retail food refrigeration Condensing units are commonly refrigerants in each system. This include HFC–134a, R–404A, R–407A, installed in convenience stores and application has generally used a low- R–422D, and R–507A. HFC–134a is a specialty shops such as bakeries and GWP refrigerant, specifically carbon non-ozone depleting chemical with the butcher shops. dioxide (R–744), in the low-temperature chemical formula C2H2F4. It is used in Typical supermarket systems are system, with a variety of refrigerants in a variety of air-conditioning and known as multiplex or centralized the medium-temperature system. refrigeration end-uses, including motor systems. They operate with racks of Refrigerant choices depend on the vehicle air conditioners, home compressors installed in a machinery refrigerant charge, the temperature appliances (such as refrigerator- room; different compressors turn on to required, and energy efficiency, among freezers), vending machines and match the refrigeration load necessary to other things. In addition to regulations building air-conditioning chillers. It is maintain temperatures. Two main pursuant to the SNAP program, other also used in other sectors such as foam design classifications are used: Direct federal or local regulations may also blowing and aerosol propellants. HFC– and indirect systems. In the United affect refrigerant choice. For instance, 134a has a GWP of 1,430. States, direct systems are the most regulations from the OSHA may restrict R–404A is a non-ozone depleting widespread. At least 70 percent of or place requirements on the use of blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– supermarkets in the United States use some refrigerants, such as ammonia (R– 143a, and HFC–134a with GWPs of centralized direct expansion (DX) 717). Building codes from local and 3,500, 4,470, and 1,430 respectively. R– systems to cool their display cases.35 State agencies may also incorporate 404A’s GWP is about 3,920 based on the The refrigerant circulates from the limits on the amount of particular 44/52/4 mass percentages of the three machinery room to the sales area, where refrigerants used. There are and will HFCs contained in the blend. R–404A is it evaporates in display-case heat continue to be a number of factors that currently acceptable for a variety of exchangers, and then returns in vapor retailers must consider when selecting medium- and low-temperature phase to the suction headers of the the refrigerant and operating system refrigeration applications including compressor racks. The supermarket design. While a number of approaches retail food refrigeration equipment such walk-in cold rooms are often integrated exist, there is no uniformly accepted as food display and storage cases; into the system and cooled similarly, holistic analysis of the multiple factors, vending machines; cold storage but an alternative option is to provide which include the following: Energy warehouses; commercial ice machines; a dedicated condensing unit for a given efficiency; system performance; refrigerated transport; and industrial storage room. Another type of potential impact on community safety; process refrigeration. supermarket design, often referred to as ambient temperatures; potential risk to R–407A is a non-ozone depleting a distributed refrigeration system, uses personal safety; cost; and minimization blend of refrigerants HFC–32, HFC–125 an array of separate compressor racks of direct and indirect environmental and HFC–134a with GWPs of 675, 3,500, located near the display cases rather impacts. EPA recognizes that these and and 1,430 respectively. R–407A’s GWP than having a central compressor rack other factors mean there will be a range is about 2,100 based on the 20/40/40 system. Each of these smaller racks of options, and the ultimate selection mass percentages of the three HFCs handles a portion of the supermarket remains with the owner and operator of contained in the blend. R–407A is load, with 5–10 such systems in a store. the system. acceptable for a variety of medium- and Indirect supermarket designs include Acceptable non-HFC substitutes in low-temperature refrigeration secondary loop systems and cascade use today for new multiplex systems applications including retail food refrigeration. Indirect systems use a include R–717 and R–744. These can be refrigeration equipment such as food chiller or other refrigeration system to used alone or in combination with other display and storage cases; cold storage cool a secondary fluid that is then refrigerants in other parts of the warehouses; commercial ice machines; circulated throughout the store to the equipment, depending on the refrigerated transport; and industrial cases. Compact chiller versions of an equipment and its design (e.g., a process refrigeration. R–407A is not indirect system rely on a lineup of 10– secondary-loop contains one refrigerant currently on the SNAP lists of 20 units, each using small charge sizes. while the primary loop contains a acceptable or unacceptable refrigerants As the refrigeration load changes, more different refrigerant). For stand-alone for vending machines. or fewer of the chillers are active. refrigeration equipment, propane (R– R–422D is a non-ozone depleting Compact chillers are used in a 290) is listed as acceptable subject to blend of refrigerants HFC–125, HFC– secondary loop system whereby the use conditions, and EPA has also 134a, and R–600a with GWPs of 3,500, chillers cool a secondary fluid that is proposed that the hydrocarbon blend R– 1,430, and 8 (GE, 2008) respectively. R– then circulated throughout the store to 441A and isobutane (R–600a) be listed 422D’s GWP is about 2,700 based on the the display cases. Each compact chiller as acceptable subject to use conditions approximate 65.1/31.5/3.4 mass is an independent unit with its own (July, 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). The percentages of the two HFCs and one Agency also has proposed elsewhere hydrocarbon contained in the blend. R– 35 http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced- that these three hydrocarbon refrigerants 422D is acceptable for a variety of refrigeration. be listed as acceptable subject to use medium- and low-temperature

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

refrigeration applications including Environmental Exposure Limits GWP of 3,920, R–507A has a GWP of retail food refrigeration equipment such (WEELs) of 1000 ppm on an 8-hour 3,990, and the other refrigerants as food display and storage cases; cold time-weighted average (TWA) from the proposed unacceptable have GWPs storage warehouses; commercial ice American Industrial Hygiene ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. machines; refrigerated transport; and Association (AIHA); a manufacturer’s For multiplex rack systems, industrial process refrigeration. R–422D recommended occupational exposure substitutes R–407A, R–407F, and R–744 is most commonly used to retrofit limit of 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA); a are all currently in use in the United existing systems such as those operating permissible exposure limit (PEL) of States and can be used more safely than on HCFC–22 and is less likely to be 1000 ppm (8-hr TWA) from the the substances that EPA is proposing to used in manufacturing new equipment. Occupational Safety and Health list as unacceptable. These substitutes R–507A (also designated as R–507) is Administration (OSHA) and a have GWPs ranging from 1 to 2,110. In a non-ozone depleting blend of recommended exposure limit (REL) of addition, testing is underway with HCs refrigerants HFC–125 and HFC–143a 800 ppm (10-hr TWA) from the National and HFC/HFO blends, though these which have GWPs of 3,500 and 4,470, Institutes for Occupational Safety and refrigerants have not been submitted to respectively. R–507A’s GWP is about Health (NIOSH). SNAP for review in this application. 3,990 based on the 50/50 mass EPA believes there are several HFC Each of these four substitutes as well as percentages of the two HFCs contained and non-HFC substitutes that provide other substitutes in development with in the blend. R–507A is acceptable for lower overall risk than the refrigerants lower GWPs have zero ODP and are safe a variety of medium- and low- EPA is proposing to list as unacceptable for the ozone layer. R–407A, R–407F, temperature refrigeration applications and that are currently used in and R–744 all have toxicity lower than including in retail food refrigeration commercial refrigeration. For both new or comparable to the refrigerants equipment such as food display and and retrofit equipment, acceptable proposed unacceptable. None of the storage cases; cold storage warehouses; refrigerants that pose less risk to human three examples that would remain on refrigerated transport; and industrial health and the environment include the acceptable list is flammable, and process refrigeration. HFC–134a, R–407A, R–407C, R–407F, none is considered a VOC. R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R–424A, R– 2. What is EPA proposing for new and b. Retrofit Condensing Units and 426A, and R–438A. Additionally, in retrofit retail food refrigeration Supermarket Systems new retail food refrigeration, three other (condensing units and supermarket EPA is proposing to change the listing substitute refrigerants are listed as systems)? of the following refrigerants from acceptable: R–717 vapor compression acceptable to unacceptable in retrofit EPA is proposing to change the listing with secondary loop, R–410A, and R– retail food refrigeration equipment for nine HFC blends for new and retrofit 744. retail food refrigeration equipment from (condensing units and supermarket acceptable to unacceptable as of January a. New Condensing Units and systems) as of January 1, 2016: R–404A, 1, 2016. These nine blends are R–404A, Supermarket Systems R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– R–407B, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R– EPA is proposing to change the listing 422D, R–428A, R–434A, and R–507A. 422D, R–428A, R–434A and R–507A. of the following refrigerants from We are aware of four of these nine EPA is not aware of any significant use acceptable to unacceptable in new retail refrigerants being used to retrofit retail in the United States of the blends R– food refrigeration equipment food equipment: R–404A, R–507A, R– 407B, R–421B, R–428A or R–434A in (condensing units and supermarket 422A, and R–422D. We are not aware of retail food refrigeration equipment. In systems) as of January 1, 2016: HFC– any use of the other five refrigerants to addition, EPA is proposing to change 227ea, R–404A, R–407B, R–421B, R– retrofit retail food refrigeration the listing of HFC–227ea in new retail 422A, R–422C, R–422D, R–428A, R– equipment but seek comment on any food refrigeration equipment from 434A, and R–507A. These refrigerants such use. This action would not apply acceptable to unacceptable.36 These ten have GWPs ranging from approximately to servicing existing equipment refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,730 to 3,985. Two of these refrigerants, designed for these nine refrigerants or to 2,730 to 3,985. They are nonflammable. R–404A and R–507A, are currently in equipment that had been retrofitted to They contain compounds that are extensive use in the retail food use those refrigerants before January 1, exempt from the definition of ‘‘VOC,’’ refrigeration market. EPA is also aware 2016. For instance, systems retrofitted to with the exception of small amounts of of some use of R–422A and R–422D in R–404A or R–507A prior to January 1, R–290 and R–600a in five of the blends, retrofit situations only, not in new 2016, would be allowed to continue to and thus are not expected to contribute equipment. We are not aware of the use operate and to be serviced using those significantly to smog. These refrigerants of any of the other six refrigerants in refrigerants. are relatively low in toxicity, and retail food refrigeration, although we For condensing units and practices common in the refrigeration seek comment on such use. supermarket systems, where retrofits are industry ensure that their workplace Other acceptable alternatives that common, blends such as R–407A and exposure limits are not exceeded. These pose lower risk are also in use in the R–407F have become the norm for practices include adhering to those various types of retail food refrigeration retrofits, rather than the four identified specified in the material safety data equipment. For condensing unit in the previous paragraph. The blends sheets and others common in the systems, R–407C and R–407F are in use R–407A and R–407F have zero ODP and commercial refrigeration industry. in the United States, and R–744 and GWPs of 2,107 and 1,825, respectively. Applicable workplace exposure limits HCs are being used in limited Other zero-ODP refrigerants that are for the compounds comprising these demonstration trials in Europe and currently listed as acceptable for use as refrigerants—HFC–32, HFC–125, HFC– elsewhere. The GWP for R–407C (a retrofits in retail food refrigeration 134a, HFC–143a, HFC–227ea, R–290 blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, and HFC– include HFC–134a, R–407C, R–417A, R– and R–600a—include Workplace 134a) is about 1,770, and R–407F 421A, R–422B, R–426A and R–427A (another blend of HFC–32, HFC–125, and they have GWPs ranging from 1,430 36 EPA has not previously found HFC–227ea and HFC–134a) has a GWP of about to 2,630, lower than the GWPs of the acceptable as a retrofit refrigerant in this end-use. 1,820. As a comparison, R–404A has a other nine blends we are proposing as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46145

unacceptable, which have GWPs lower-GWP blends such as R–407A and the use conditions specified (or ranging from 2,729 to 3,985. R–407F instead of R–404A and R–507A, proposed for R–600a and R–441A) An unacceptability listing for these as mentioned above. Further, we believe would ensure that they do not pose nine blends in retrofitted equipment that other options, given the multi-year greater risk than any of the substitutes could primarily affect the many stores history of their successful use, are currently listed as acceptable in new that operate using HCFC–22, but also sufficient to meet the various features— stand-alone equipment.40 None of the those using CFC–12, R–502, and several such as capacity, efficiency, materials refrigerants currently listed as HCFC-containing blends such as R– compatibility, cost and supply—that acceptable or that we have proposed to 401A, R–402A and R–408A. This is affect the choice of a retrofit add to the list of acceptable substitutes because as EPA reduces or eliminates refrigerant.38 presents significant human health the production and import of ODSs, toxicity concerns or other ecosystem 3. What is EPA proposing for new and stores will have less material to meet impacts. Apart from R–290 and R–744, retrofit stand-alone equipment? service demands. While the ODS those refrigerants listed acceptable for phaseout does not require owners to a. New Stand-Alone Equipment new stand-alone equipment either retrofit their equipment, a decrease in EPA is proposing to change the listing contain an HCFC (and are addressed in the availability of virgin material may in for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for Section VI below) and/or do not appear turn lead operators of those stores to new stand-alone retail food refrigeration to be in production. consider retrofits, although under our equipment from acceptable to We understand that R–290 is already proposal certain refrigerants would not unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. in use globally, including in the United be acceptable. For instance, some stores These other refrigerants are FOR12A, States, and that R–600a is in use outside currently using HCFC–22 may choose to FOR12B, HFC–227ea, IKON B, KDD6, of the United States as well as in test retrofit as the production and import of R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/ market trials in the United States. We HCFC–22 is phased down and 1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R–407C, believe that these two refrigerants can eventually phased out by 2020 per 40 R–407F, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– satisfy the vast majority of the current CFR 82.16. EPA recently proposed 421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– market for use in stand-alone HCFC–22 allowance allocations for the 422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– equipment. We note that there may be 2014–2019 time period (December 24, 428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, R– a need to modify the equipment design 2013; 78 FR 78071). Some have 507A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 in order to meet the use conditions for questioned whether finding certain (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR– R–290 and the proposed use conditions refrigerants unacceptable for retrofit 03. These refrigerants have GWPs for R–600a and R–441A (July 9, 2014; 79 might provide an incentive to stores to ranging from approximately 600 up to FR 38811). Because there are other continue to operate with the ODS they approximately 3,990. substitutes that pose lower risk, we are are currently using for longer than they Acceptable substitutes in new stand- proposing to change the listing to might otherwise plan, and we seek alone equipment include R–744 and R– unacceptable for new stand-alone comment on this question. In response 290. EPA recently proposed to find R– equipment of the following refrigerants: to this question, we note that many 600a and R–441A acceptable subject to FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC–134a, HFC– retail chains have been able to minimize use conditions in new stand-alone 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/134a/ the impact of the HCFC–22 phasedown equipment (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). 600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R– by maintaining their own stockpile of These existing and potential substitutes 407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R– HCFC–22, for instance by recovering have GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R– from stores that are decommissioned or compared to HFC–134a with a GWP of 421B, R–422A, R–422B, R–422C, R– retrofitted and using such supplies in 1,430, R–404A with a GWP of 422D, R–424A, R–426A, R–428A, R– stores that continue to operate with approximately 3,920, and R–507A with 434A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 HCFC–22. We also note that some a GWP of approximately 3,990. None of (2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 service is being performed with the substitutes currently listed or formulation), SP34E, and THR–03. reclaimed material, with over four proposed for listing as acceptable has an b. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment million pounds of HCFC–22 being ODP. While R–290, R–600a, and R– reclaimed every year since at least 2000, 441A are VOCs, EPA’s analysis EPA is proposing to change the listing and over seven million pounds every indicates that their use as refrigerants in for R–404A and R–507A from year since 2006.37 While we don’t know this end-use would not significantly acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit how this reclaim market will change in affect meeting national ambient air refrigerants for stand-alone equipment the future, recent history shows that the quality standards. At the time we listed as of January 1, 2016. This action would market is using reclaimed material in R–290 as acceptable subject to use not apply to servicing existing addition to limited newly-produced conditions, we analyzed the potential equipment designed for those supplies that are being reduced by the air quality impacts of emissions of these refrigerants or to equipment retrofitted phaseout. VOCs and did not find this potential to use those refrigerants before January Regardless of the continued supply of risk to the environment to be significant 1, 2016. For instance, equipment HCFC–22, we believe that the majority (ICF, 2014e).39 We have likewise retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to of retrofits are planned for reasons other proposed to exempt R–600a and R– January 1, 2016, would be allowed to than the supply of the refrigerant 441A used in stand-alone equipment continue to operate using those currently in-use, for instance during from the venting prohibition (July 9, refrigerants. planned maintenance overhauls or 2014; 79 FR 38811). These three when upgrading to more energy efficient substitutes are also flammable; however, 40 The risks due to the flammability of these equipment. We also see that many refrigerants in this end-use were analyzed in the SNAP rule finding them acceptable subject to use retrofits are already directed towards 38 For example, see CCAC 2012. conditions (December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832) and 39 EPA has proposed to exempt R–290 in stand- docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0286) 37 The latest data on refrigerant reclamation can alone retail food refrigeration equipment from the and information is found in a SNAP proposed rule be found on EPA’s Web site at: www.epa.gov/ venting prohibition found at 40 CFR 82.154 (78 FR signed June XX, 2014 and docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/recsum.pdf. 21871). 2013–0748).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

While we do not believe retrofits are not pose greater risk than substitutes Under our proposal, the following common in stand-alone retail food that are already listed as acceptable refrigerants would remain acceptable for refrigeration equipment, a number of (July 9, 2014; 79 FR 38811). None of the retrofitting vending machines: FOR12A, refrigerants are listed as acceptable for substitutes currently listed or proposed FOR12B, HFC–134a, IKON A, IKON B, this purpose. For equipment still to be listed as acceptable present KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ operating using ozone-depleting significant human health toxicity 42.5/1.5), R–407C, R–417A, R–417C, R– refrigerants, we believe there are options concerns or other ecosystem impacts. 421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– available other than R–404A and R– Hence, we find that R–290, R–600a and 426A, R–437A, R–438A, RS–24 (2002 507A that present lower overall risk to R–441A are potentially available and formulation), SP34E, and THR–02. human health and the environment that present a lower overall risk to human These refrigerants have GWPs from are available. Our analysis indicates that health and the environment than HFC– approximately 50 to approximately other options such as HFC–134a can be 134a and the other refrigerants proposed 3,100, while the two refrigerants used to retrofit stand-alone units. to be listed as unacceptable in new proposed unacceptable, R–404A and R– 507A, have GWPs of 3,922 and 3,985, 4. What is EPA proposing for new and vending machines. respectively. In this respect, these two retrofit vending machines? For new vending machines, EPA has found R–744 acceptable without use refrigerants present a higher risk to a. New Vending Machines conditions. While the vast majority of human health and the environment. EPA is proposing to change the listing vending machines using non-ODS Looking at the other SNAP criteria, we for HFC–134a and other refrigerants for refrigerant currently use HFC–134a, find that those refrigerants remaining new vending machines from acceptable units are now being manufactured to acceptable present similar risk to human to unacceptable as of January 1, 2016. use R–744. At least one major global health and the environment: they are These other refrigerants are FOR12A, buyer of vending machines is nonflammable, they are not VOCs, and FOR12B, IKON B, KDD6, R–125/290/ committed to transitioning all of their they do not exhibit significant human 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, new U.S.-placed equipment to R–744.42 health toxicity concerns or other R–407C, R–410A, R–410B, R–417A, R– Given the large market share that this ecosystem impacts. Hence, we believe 421A, R–422B, R–422C, R–422D, R– company holds, it is likely that R–744 these options present lower overall risk 426A, R–437A, R–438A, R–507A, RS–24 components and units are already or to human health and the environment (2002 formulation), and SP34E. These will shortly become a viable option for than R–404A and R–507A. refrigerants have GWPs ranging from all vending machine OEMs and 5. When would the listings change? approximately 600 up to approximately purchasers. Through this action, we are proposing 3,990. Given the zero ODP and low GWP of Acceptable existing substitutes with that all listing changes that apply within R–744 and the other hydrocarbons that lower GWPs that pose less risk to commercial refrigeration would occur EPA has proposed to find acceptable human health and the environment in on the same date—January 1, 2016. subject to use conditions in vending this end-use include R–744, which is Looking at the intersection between the machines, the use conditions that we currently being used in this end-use. In end-use and the alternatives EPA have proposed to establish for the addition, EPA recently proposed to find believes that changing the listings as of hydrocarbon refrigerants, and the fact R–600a, R–290 and R–441A acceptable January 1, 2016, allows sufficient that the risks based on other factors subject to use conditions in new opportunity for any planned new such as toxicity are not greater than for vending machines (July 9, 2014; 79 FR installations or manufacturing HFC–134a, we propose to change the 38811). We note that some redesign equipment lines in these end-uses to be listing of HFC–134a and the alternatives would be required to meet the use redesigned to use a substitute to the listed in the first paragraph of this conditions set for all three of these refrigerants we are proposing to find section to unacceptable in new vending substitutes—R–600a, R–290 and R– unacceptable. We also believe that this machines. 441A— in the recent proposal (July 9, date would allow any plans for future 2014; 79 FR 38811). b. Retrofit Vending Machines retrofits to these blends to be These four substitutes (R–744 and the reconsidered, given the multiple other three proposed hydrocarbons) have EPA is proposing to change the listing substitutes that would remain GWPs ranging from 1 to 8 compared to for R–404A and R–507A from acceptable. For many years other HFC–134a with a GWP of 1,430, R– acceptable to unacceptable as retrofit refrigerants such as R–407A and R–407F 404A with a GWP of approximately refrigerants for vending machines that would remain on the acceptable 3,920, and R–507A with a GWP of operating on CFC–12, HCFC–22, and lists pursuant to our proposal have been approximately 3,990. None of these blends containing HCFCs, as of January gaining market share in supermarket substitutes currently listed or proposed 1, 2016. This action would not apply to applications, in both new equipment for listing as acceptable has an ODP. servicing existing equipment designed and as retrofit fluids.43 As part of this While the HCs (R–441A, R–600a and R– for those refrigerants or to equipment market expansion, manufacturers have 290) are VOCs, EPA’s analysis indicates that had been retrofitted to use those developed equipment to use them, and that their use as refrigerants in this end- refrigerants before January 1, 2016, that equipment is available to buyers use would not significantly affect including those systems previously now. In addition, many companies have meeting national ambient air quality using ozone-depleting refrigerants such implemented these other refrigerants, in standards. (ICF 2014e).41 These three as HCFC–22. For instance, systems both new construction and as retrofits, substitutes are also flammable; however, retrofitted to R–404A or R–507A prior to and have built up the skills, knowledge the proposed use conditions for these January 1, 2016, would be allowed to and experience to more fully utilize three substitutes would ensure they do continue to operate using those these refrigerants in a timeframe that refrigerants. would accommodate January 1, 2016 as 41 EPA has proposed to exempt R–290 (propane) R–600a (isobutane) and R–441A in vending 42 The Coca-Cola Company has identified carbon 43 ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the U.S machines from the venting prohibition found at 40 dioxide as its HFC-free refrigerant of choice for new Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Prepared for the CFR 82.154 (78 FR 21871). equipment (Coca Cola, 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May, 2014.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46147

the date of unacceptability. For stand- gains achieved by some of the low-GWP better controls, improved insulation alone equipment and vending machines, refrigerants, such as R–744, R–290 and (e.g., on display cases) and sealing (for new equipment is being installed using R–600a, that are available or potentially products with doors), more efficient refrigerants that are acceptable or are available for the end-uses addressed in lighting, etc. proposed acceptable with use this proposal. We welcome additional The United States Department of conditions, including R–744, R–290 and information and comment on improved Energy (DOE) has promulgated, under R–600a.44 EPA requests comment on energy efficiency associated with separate rulemaking and separate this proposed date. EPA is also switching refrigerants. authority, energy efficiency interested in information concerning the For instance, in supermarket requirements for several types of supply of substitutes in sufficient refrigeration, a theoretical analysis commercial refrigeration equipment, quantities to meet a domestic transition (Emerson 2014) examined the energy including products that would be within the proposed timeframe. use of R–407A and R–410A, both of affected by this proposal. While EPA’s which would remain acceptable under proposal would limit the choice of 6. Applicability To Service of Existing this proposal, against that of R–404A, Equipment refrigerant a manufacturer could use in which would be listed as unacceptable. new equipment, EPA notes that such As noted above, EPA is not proposing Although this analysis found that both equipment would still be subject to the to alter the ability to service existing blends would see a 3.6% to 6.7% drop DOE requirements and would normally retail food refrigeration equipment or in efficiency in the low-temperature part need to meet the standards set.45 As vending machines with the refrigerant of the store (e.g., frozen food, ice cream), discussed above, EPA does not believe they contain as of January 1, 2016. We they would achieve a 4.3% to 13.3% this proposal would prevent compliance recognize the value of the currently increase in the medium-temperature with the DOE rules, and we note that installed appliances and are not seeking part of the store (e.g., meat, dairy many compliant models are already to shorten their useful lifetime. EPA also products, chilled prepared food). Given commercially available that do not use recognizes that servicing for existing that supermarkets have significantly the refrigerants EPA has proposed as equipment is often accomplished with larger use of medium-temperature unacceptable. EPA requests comment on recovered and recycled refrigerants. equipment, the net effect would be for the effects this proposal would have on EPA seeks comments on allowing for the alternatives to use less energy than the energy efficiency of the commercial the continued servicing of the existing R–404A. This manufacturer’s analyses refrigeration end-uses addressed and in retail food refrigeration equipment and showed similar increases in energy particular the effect, if any, this vending machines with the refrigerant efficiency compared to R–404A in proposal would have on meeting they contain as of January 1, 2016. supermarkets and stand-alone applicable DOE standards. 7. Energy Efficiency Consideration equipment for a variety of low-GWP refrigerants that are not yet listed under 8. What other options is EPA Energy efficiency has not historically SNAP but are in development. considering? been a criterion by which a refrigerant While that manufacturer’s analysis EPA is considering but is not is analyzed under the SNAP program, showed slightly higher energy proposing to change the listing for and it is not used as one of the criteria consumption than R–134a in theoretical several other substitutes in retail food in this proposal. However, EPA calculations for stand-alone equipment, refrigeration. We are seeking comment recognizes that the energy efficiency of other results with actual equipment on these substitutes. particular models of equipment is a have shown otherwise. For instance, in significant factor when choosing stand-alone equipment, one user a. New and Retrofit Condensing Units commercial refrigeration equipment. We reported that ‘‘HC freezers are and Supermarket Systems also recognize that the energy efficiency significantly more energy-efficient and When analyzing supermarket retail of any given piece of equipment is in use a natural hydrocarbon refrigerant food refrigeration systems, as an part affected by the choice of refrigerant with lower global warming potential alternative to changing the listing to and the particular thermodynamic and than the HFC refrigerants commonly unacceptable for HFC–227ea, R–407B, thermophysical properties that used in US freezers’’ (Ben and Jerry’s, R–421B, R–422A, R–422C, R–422D, R– refrigerant possesses. 2014). Likewise, for vending machines, 428A, and R–434A, we are considering Throughout the phaseout of ozone- one purchaser has indicated that while setting a use restriction to limit the depleting substances, EPA has seen the introducing over one million units using charge size of these chemicals allowed energy efficiency of refrigeration and R–744, they have increased the energy to be used in condensing units and air-conditioning equipment increase, efficiency of their cooling equipment supermarket systems. Supermarkets despite changing refrigerant options. In over 40% since 2000, many years after could use systems employing one of the some cases, this was because new they adopted HFC–134a (Coca-Cola, chemicals were developed that 2014). 45 Refrigeration equipment in the applicable possessed unique properties that Finally, we note that energy efficiency covered equipment class would still be subject to allowed high energy efficiency levels to is influenced, but not determined, by DOE’s standards, regardless of the refrigerant that be obtained. In addition, technological the refrigerant. As new products are the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by a improvement in equipment designs and designed for the use of particular regulatory standard prescribed by DOE (in contrast controls has increased energy efficiency. refrigerants, manufacturers have the to one that is statutorily prescribed by Congress), Although today’s proposal would opportunity to change designs to take the manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of eliminate some refrigerant choices, we advantage of a given refrigerant’s Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s do not believe it would have a characteristics. The redesign and authority under section 504 of the DOE detrimental effect on this trend in development phase is also an Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented increased energy efficiency. In fact, opportunity to improve other at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the there are multiple case studies available components that will affect the overall authority to grant regulatory relief from a standard promulgated by DOE on a case-by-case basis if it that highlight the energy efficiency efficiency of the equipment, such as the determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated use of more efficient motors and that meeting the standard would cause hardship, 44 Ibid. compressors, improved heat exchangers, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

many advanced refrigeration designs that continue to use CFC–12 and/or R– b. New Stand-Alone Equipment and currently deployed in the United States, 502, the production and import of Vending Machines such as distributed refrigeration, which was phased out in 1996, and For new stand-alone retail food secondary-loop, and cascade designs. To believe the same long equipment refrigeration equipment and vending set the charge size limit, EPA is lifetimes can be achieved, if desired, machines, we are considering considering the charge size limit that is with equipment installed prior to maintaining the acceptability status of necessary, but not fully sufficient, to January 1, 2016, using the refrigerants HFC–134a and blends with a lower achieve a Gold-Level Store Certification we propose as unacceptable. Finally, GWP—FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON A, under EPA’s GreenChill Store where retrofits to refrigerants that are 46 IKON B, SP34E, THR–02, and THR– Certification Program. That not proposed as unacceptable have 03—subject to a use restriction. One specification requires that the store occurred, the industry has been able to reason to maintain the acceptability of must achieve an average HFC refrigerant achieve acceptable capacity and these refrigerants, in particular HFC– charge equal to or less than 1.25 pounds efficiency levels. All these factors point 134a, would be to allow niche of refrigerant per MBTU/hr total to the ability of industry to make applications to continue to use the evaporator heat load.47 business decisions on which stores to primary refrigerant employed in these For new equipment, one reason we decommission or retrofit and when to end-uses while new low-GWP are considering a use restriction do so while maintaining their requiring a small charge is to limit the substitutes are developed. operations without the need to rely on For new vending machines, we are amount of high-GWP refrigerant that the refrigerants we are proposing as considering whether substitutes other would be emitted in a catastrophic unacceptable. than HFC–134a are available for low- event. However, given the high GWP of temperature refrigeration applications, these refrigerants compared to other Second, some have questioned for instance, for ice-cream novelty or refrigerants that are available in these whether removing options from the list microwavable frozen-food vending end-uses, we do not believe that use of acceptable retrofit substitutes might with a small charge size adequately present a perverse incentive for stores machines and, if not, whether to addresses the greater risk they pose. with older systems (more likely to leak) establish a use restriction that HFC– Further, we recognize that using a to continue use of ozone-depleting 134a could only be used in vending lower-GWP refrigerant, such as R–407A refrigerants, primarily HCFC–22 but also machines designed for, and maintaining, an internal temperature of or R–407F, is also possible in small- CFC–12, R–502, and multiple blends ° ° charge systems, and several stores are containing HCFCs, rather than retrofit or 32 F (0 C) or below. However, we operating with such systems today. replace those systems with a new believe that the availability of R–744, For retrofits, two primary factors lead refrigerant. While production and which is listed as acceptable, and the us to consider a use restriction for a import of HCFC–22 and all other HCFCs availability of HCs, which we have small charge size in place of listing the used in the acceptable retrofit blends are proposed to list as acceptable, do not substitutes as unacceptable. First, there capped, the stores using them would support such an action. We are are many different supermarket systems continue to leak ozone-depleting requesting comment on the viability of in operation with ozone-depleting refrigerants into the atmosphere. The these substitutes in low-temperature refrigerants today, and there may be additional refrigerant that they would applications. Further, we are asking for some concern that not all could be need to service that leaky equipment comment on the supply of components retrofitted with the lower-GWP blends, might not have been produced in the designed for R–744, hydrocarbons, or i.e., whether there truly are alternatives first place if the demand was not there. other potential substitutes for use in low-temperature vending machines and ‘‘available’’ for the purpose. As to this Nonetheless, given the tight controls on how that supply might affect the ability concern, we reflect on three points. production and import of ozone- of manufacturers to continue to provide First, based on the regulations phasing depleting refrigerants, we believe the such equipment to meet these out CFCs in 1996, equipment using market will determine where those applications and customers’ CFCs today would be at least 18 years limited supplies are directed and where requirements including energy old, beyond the typical average a store may retrofit to a refrigerant other lifetime.48 Because it is typical to retire efficiency goals. than those proposed to be listed as For new stand-alone equipment, we older equipment before newer unacceptable. equipment, it is likely that many stores note that HCs pose additional using those refrigerants would be EPA requests comments on both challenges related to their flammability. decommissioned, or the refrigeration concerns addressed above, particularly Some stand-alone retail food systems would be replaced rather than the availability of substitutes able to refrigeration appliances utilizing HCs retrofitted. Second, we do not see an work with the design of existing systems have required design changes, and our impediment in the continued operation that might be retrofitted, and the use conditions require meeting specific of stores currently using refrigerants possible perverse incentives an charge size limits, raising questions of proposed unacceptable for new and/or unacceptable listing might bring to the viability of HCs in all larger retrofit equipment (see section 6 above). continue to operate older, less efficient, applications within this end-use. EPA is We know that some stores have systems and/or leakier ODS systems. EPA also considering adding a use restriction requests comments on the specified limiting the use of HFC–134a and the 46 Additional information on GreenChill is charge size limit and how it would be blends mentioned to only larger-sized available at http://www2.epa.gov/greenchill/. met in both new and retrofit retail food units, while finding it unacceptable in 47 In addition to reaching this HFC charge size refrigeration (condensing units and smaller-sized units. To determine the limit, stores must use only non-ozone-depleting refrigerants and must meet a store-wide annual supermarket systems) if EPA were to dividing line between ‘‘small’’ and refrigerant emissions rate of no more than 15% in propose a use restriction rather than ‘‘large’’ units, we are considering order to be certified at the Gold level. take final action by listing some or all options such as the number of doors 48 For example, IPCC 2006 indicates that the of these refrigerants as unacceptable for within a single unit, the refrigeration average lifetime of medium and large commercial refrigeration equipment is between seven and 15 condensing units and supermarket capacity of the unit, and the interior years. systems. volume.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46149

Although we are considering this 42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407A, R–407B, R– food refrigeration and vending option, we are not proposing it because 407C, R–407F, R–417A, R–417C, R– machines, such as cold storage rooms we feel other options exist to design 421A, R–421B, R–422A, R–422B, R– and warehouses, ice machines, units using other less harmful 422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– refrigerated transport, and industrial alternatives, even in large stand-alone 427A, R–428A, R–434A, R–437A, R– process refrigeration. We believe that units. The SNAP acceptability listing for 438A, R–507A, RS–24 (2002 the substitutes that are being used in R–744 in stand-alone equipment does formulation), and RS–44 (2003 retail food refrigeration, such as R–407A not include a restriction on charge size formulation). Likewise, this option and R–407F, would be theoretically or any other use condition. We also would change the status of the following viable in these other end-uses too, given recognize the ability to apply separate refrigerants from acceptable to that the operational characteristics of refrigeration circuits within a given unacceptable in retrofit vending such equipment, such as temperature to cabinet; for instance one circuit with up machines: KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a be maintained, are similar. Those two to 150 grams of R–290 to cool a portion (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R–404A, R–407C, R– substitutes, and others, have been found of the unit and a second circuit with up 417A, R–417C, R–421A, R–422B, R– acceptable in the four end-uses to 150 grams of R–290 to cool the rest 422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R– mentioned. In addition, low-GWP of the unit. Such dual-circuit designs 438A, R–507A, and RS–24 (2002 substitutes have been found acceptable might be particularly effective if formulation). The refrigerants in these under SNAP for some of these end-uses, different parts of the unit are used for two lists have GWPs that range from and research is underway in the others. different products that require different 1,505 to 3,985. For example, for the industrial process temperature conditions or have different These refrigerants have higher GWPs refrigeration end-use, R–744, R–717, refrigeration loads. than HFC–134a, which would remain and several HCs have been found EPA seeks comments on this option acceptable for retrofits, and in this acceptable. For cold storage warehouses, and particularly on how one would respect pose a higher risk to human R–744 is acceptable for new equipment, determine what size of a unit could not health and the environment. Similar to and R–717 is in widespread use. R–744 use substitutes that would remain on HFC–134a, these other refrigerants do for refrigerated transport and HCs for ice the acceptable list under this proposal not pose increased risk due to toxicity, machines have been tested and, or that we have recently proposed be flammability, ODP and ecological although not yet listed under SNAP, are added to the acceptable list; where the effects. EPA believes that HFC–134a being used outside the United States. In dividing line would be drawn; and how would be the most likely refrigerant to these two end-uses, the list of such a use restriction could avoid be used to retrofit stand-alone acceptable refrigerants is similar to that unintended consequences such as the equipment and vending machines still for supermarket applications, spanning over-sizing of units to allow the use of operating on ozone-depleting a wide range of GWPs. Several HFC HFC–134a. refrigerant. EPA questions whether the blends with GWPs considerably lower EPA believes that R–744, an other refrigerants listed above would than those of R–404A and R–507A are acceptable option for both new stand- serve any retrofit need, and whether being used in retail food refrigeration, alone retail food refrigeration equipment finding them unacceptable would especially in supermarkets and, as and new vending machines, and R–290, reduce overall risk to human health and stated above, are acceptable in the four an acceptable substitute for new stand- the environment. EPA believes some end-uses mentioned; however, we have alone retail food refrigeration equipment existing vending machines and stand- limited knowledge of their use in these and proposed as acceptable for new alone equipment still use class I ozone- other end-uses. For that reason, we have vending machines, could satisfy the vast depleting refrigerants such as CFC–12 not proposed finding R–404A and R– majority of new equipment in these end- and R–502 and that even more 507A unacceptable in these other end- uses. However, we seek additional equipment continues to use class II uses. information and studies that would help ozone-depleting refrigerants, primarily EPA requests comment on the use and us understand whether certain designs HCFC–22. Other than HFC–134a, we do viability of both low-GWP refrigerants (e.g., 3-door and other large retail food not believe there are substitutes that (e.g., R–744, R–717, and HCs) and other refrigeration stand-alone equipment) would likely be used for most of this HFC-blends (e.g., R–407A and R–407F) could meet the charge size limit in the equipment for purposes of retrofitting. and the possibility of listing R–404A, R– case of R–290. We also seek information We seek comment on the option of 507A, and other high-GWP blends regarding whether certain applications finding other substitutes, in addition to unacceptable in any or all of these four (e.g., low-temperature vending R–404A and R–507A, unacceptable as end-uses—cold storage warehouses, ice machines) could be effective while retrofit refrigerants in vending machines machines, refrigerated transport, and maintaining current energy efficiency and stand-alone retail food refrigeration industrial process refrigeration. EPA levels in the case of R–744. equipment. In particular, we are also solicits comments on the feasibility interested in an assessment of the of the proposed deadlines and whether c. Retrofit Stand-Alone Equipment and existing stock of equipment operating earlier or later dates would be more Vending Machines with ozone-depleting refrigerants, the appropriate. EPA has proposed to find R–404A and likelihood that they will require a D. Foam Blowing Agents R–507A unacceptable for retrofits in retrofit before being replaced with a new both stand-alone equipment and unit, and the substitute(s) that could be EPA is proposing to change the vending machines. EPA is considering and are likely to be used. listings from acceptable to unacceptable also changing the acceptability status of beginning January 1, 2017, except where several other refrigerants to d. Status of R–404A and R–507A in allowed under a narrowed use limit, for unacceptable. Under this option, we Other End-Uses HFC–134a and blends thereof in all would change the status of the following Considering the high GWP of R–404A, foam blowing end-uses, and for HFC– refrigerants from acceptable to R–507A, and some of the other blends 365mfc, HFC–245fa and blends thereof unacceptable in retrofit retail food proposed as unacceptable, EPA is for all foam blowing end-uses except refrigeration (stand-alone equipment): considering finding them unacceptable spray foam applications. Specific end- KDD6, R–125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ in several other end-uses, besides retail uses and applications include: (1) Rigid

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46151

past several years. Many end users have with at least 4% HFC–245fa, and alternatives (in-kind and not-in-kind) indicated interest in these newer commercial blends of HFC–365mfc with with GWPs that range from zero to alternatives, often to improve energy 7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the remainder seven. Toxicity is not a significant efficiency of the foam products HFC–365mfc), while others are concern for these alternatives because manufactured with the foam blowing flammable (HFC–365mfc and HFC– they may be used for blowing appliance agent. Production volumes for some of 143a). The HFC blends Formacel B and foam consistent with required or these newer substitutes are expanding Formacel Z–6 may be flammable recommended workplace exposure rapidly to keep pace with growing depending on the exact composition, limits. With the exception of HCs and demand. For example, HFO–1234ze(E) with the less flammable or Exxsol blowing agents, these and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- nonflammable formulations having alternatives contain compounds that are ene have recently been listed as higher GWPs, in some cases as high as exempt from the definition of VOC. Of acceptable. HFO–1336mzz(Z) is 1300 to 1500. the alternatives listed above, only trans- currently under review by EPA as a In addition to the GWP of foam 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene substitute foam blowing agent. These blowing agents, another potential contains chlorine and has measurable newer substitutes, which do not raise climate impact from foam blowing ODP. Its ODP of 0.00024 to 0.00034 50 51 the flammability concerns of HCs, may agents is the insulation value of the is roughly one order of magnitude prove appropriate for end-uses where blown foam. This may matter for rigid higher than the ODP of HFC–134a flammable agents raise safety concerns. insulation foams, where the foam which is considered to have zero The process and timing for retooling blowing agent may add more or less ODP.52 Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- facilities that use the blowing agents or insulation value to rigid polyurethane trifluoroprop-1-ene’s impact on global that incorporate the foam product into appliance foam; rigid polyurethane atmospheric ozone abundance is another product will vary depending on spray, commercial refrigeration and expected be statistically insignificant.53 the substitute selected. In some cases, sandwich panels; rigid polyurethane Of the various options listed in this manufacturing facilities such as slabstock and other foam; polystyrene paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing household refrigerator manufacturers extruded boardstock and billet; rigid agents, HCs, and methyl formate are have already begun the testing of and polyurethane and polyisocyanurate flammable, and the others are transitioning to lower-GWP substitutes laminated boardstock; and phenolic nonflammable. The hazards of the for foam blowing. insulation board and bunstock. A foam flammable compounds in this end-use with better overall insulation value can can be adequately addressed in the b. What are the health and reduce indirect greenhouse gas process of meeting OSHA regulations environmental impacts of the substitute emissions from power plants if the foam and fire codes. In this end-use, HFC– foam blowing agents? insulation results in greater energy 134a, Formacel TI, HFC–245fa, HFC– i. Proposed Unacceptable Agents efficiency and less need for heating or 365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 have significantly higher GWPs than the The HFCs that we are proposing to cooling. Some studies have indicated other available substitutes mentioned find unacceptable have GWPs ranging that hydrocarbons and CO2 may provide above in this paragraph, thereby from 794 for HFC–365mfc to 4470 for less insulation value to an insulation foam, pound for pound, than HFCs. increasing overall risks to human health HFC–143a, which is significantly higher and the environment. than the GWPs of other acceptable Recent information on some of the substitutes. The HFC blends that we are newer fluorinated foam blowing agents iii. Flexible Polyurethane with low GWPs, such as HFO–1234ze(E) proposing to find unacceptable have For flexible polyurethane used for GWPs that vary depending on the and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- ene, indicates these foam blowing foam furniture, bedding, chair cushions, specific composition; the range of GWPs shoe soles and other applications, for blends are 140 to 1500 for Formacel agents provide comparable or greater insulation value than their HCFC and acceptable substitutes include acetone, B, 1330 to close to 1500 for Formacel TI, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), Exxsol HFC predecessors and therefore may be 370 to 1290 for Formacel Z–6, 740 to blowing agents, CO , ecomateTM (i.e., of interest to companies considering 2 1030 for blends of HFC–365mfc with at methyl formate), HFC–152a, and water transition to more energy-efficient least 4% HFC–245fa, and 900 to 1100 with GWPs ranging from zero to 124. Of options. In addition, even a foam for commercial blends of HFC–365mfc the substitutes listed for flexible blowing agent that provides less with 7 to 13% HFC–227ea and the polyurethane, all have an ODP of zero. insulation value may still not impact the remainder HFC–365mfc. All of the HFCs Toxicity is not a significant concern for foam’s overall energy efficiency where and HFC blends that we are proposing these substitutes because they may be thicker foam is used. Because of the to find unacceptable consist of used for blowing flexible polyurethane variety of foam blowing agents available compounds that are non-ozone- foam consistent with required or depleting and are VOC-exempt. Toxicity in each end-use, we believe that there recommended workplace exposure is not a significant concern for these are sufficient options that will not have limits. With the exception of HCs and alternatives because they may be used an adverse impact on indirect Exxsol blowing agents, these substitutes for blowing foam consistent with greenhouse emissions. contain compounds that are exempt required or recommended workplace ii. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam exposure limits. For example, HFC– 50 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. For rigid polyurethane appliance 134a, HFC–143a, and HFC–245fa can be ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Potential foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6 49), used consistent with their respective Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.’’ Department of CO , vacuum panels, water, ecomateTM, Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, AIHA WEELs of 1000 ppm, 1000 ppm, 2 Exxsol blowing agents, methyl formate, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011. and 200 ppm (8-hr TWA) in the foam 51 HFO–1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro- Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric end-uses where they are acceptable. Of Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans- 3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable the foam blowing agents that we 1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.’’ propose to be unacceptable, some are 49 These are hydrocarbons with three to six Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867–10874, 2010. nonflammable (HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, carbons, including propane, butane, isobutane, 52 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit. Formacel TI, blends of HFC–365mfc pentane, isopentane, cyclopentane, and hexane. 53 Wang et al., 2011. Op. cit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

from the definition of VOC. Of the risks are more difficult to mitigate than adequately addressed in the process of various options listed in this paragraph, in most other foam applications meeting OSHA regulations and fire ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, because, unlike in a factory setting, it is codes. In these applications, HFC–134a, HFC–152a, and hydrocarbons are unlikely that ventilation can be HFC–245fa, HFC–365mfc, Formacel Z–6 flammable, and the others are provided that removes flammable and Formacel B have significantly nonflammable. The flammability vapors and maintains them below the higher GWPs than the other available hazards of the flammable compounds in lower flammability limit, and it is not substitutes mentioned above in this this end-use can be adequately practical to make all electrical fixtures paragraph, thereby increasing overall addressed in the process of meeting explosion proof when applying spray risks to human health and the OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this foam in place in a residential building. environment. Thus, EPA is proposing to find HFC– end-use, HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, and vi. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and 134a and blends thereof and Formacel HFC–365mfc have significantly higher Other Foam GWPs than the other available TI unacceptable in this application. We substitutes mentioned above in this are proposing that HFC–245fa; For rigid polyurethane slabstock and paragraph, thereby increasing overall commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and other foam, saturated light HCs (C3–C6), TM risks to human health and the HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% CO2, water, ecomate , Exxsol blowing environment. HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– agents, methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), 365mfc; and blends of HFC–365mfc and and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1- iv. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam at least 5% HFC–245fa remain ene are acceptable alternatives with For rigid polyurethane spray foam, acceptable in spray foam because these GWPs that range from zero to seven. which includes insulation for roofing, three nonflammable foam blowing Toxicity is not a significant concern for wall, pipes, and buoyancy, acceptable agents reduce overall risk compared to these alternatives because they may be substitutes include HFC–245fa, the available flammable alternatives. used for blowing slabstock foam commercial blends of HFC–365mfc and The three HFC blends that remain consistent with required or HFC–227ea, containing 7% to 13% acceptable reduce overall risks to recommended workplace exposure HFC–227ea and the remainder HFC– human health and the environment limits. With the exception of HCs and 365mfc, blends of HFC–365mfc and at compared to HFC–134a and Formacel TI Exxsol blowing agents, these least 5% HFC–245fa, CO2, water, Exxsol in this application because they have alternatives contain compounds that are blowing agents, ecomateTM, HFO– lower GWPs. exempt from the definition of VOC. Of the alternatives listed above, only trans- 1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- v. Rigid Polyurethane Used in trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs ranging 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich an ODP, and as discussed above for from zero to 1100. Toxicity is not a Panels significant concern for these alternatives rigid polyurethane appliance foam, its because they may be used for spray For rigid polyurethane used in impact on global atmospheric ozone foam consistent with required or commercial refrigeration and sandwich abundance is expected be statistically recommended workplace exposure panels, which includes insulation for insignificant. Of the various options TM limits. With the exception of Exxsol roofing, wall, metal doors, vending listed in this paragraph, ecomate , blowing agents, these substitutes machines, coolers, buoyancy, and Exxsol blowing agents, HCs, and methyl contain compounds that are exempt refrigerated transport vehicles, formate are flammable, and the others acceptable alternatives include are nonflammable. The flammability from the definition of VOC. Of the TM substitutes listed above, only trans-1- saturated light HCs (C3–C6), ecomate , hazards of the flammable compounds in chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene has an CO2, water, Exxsol blowing agents, this end-use can be adequately ODP, and as discussed above for rigid methyl formate, HFO–1234ze(E), and addressed in the process of meeting polyurethane appliance foam, its impact trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene OSHA regulations and fire codes. In this on global atmospheric ozone abundance with GWPs ranging from zero to seven. end-use, HFC–134a, Formacel TI, HFC– is expected be statistically insignificant. Toxicity is not a significant concern for 245fa, HFC–365mfc, and Formacel Z–6 Flammability is of particular concern these alternatives because they may be have significantly higher GWPs than the in spray foam applications, in part used for blowing foam for commercial other available substitutes mentioned because they are applied onsite in refrigeration and sandwich panels, above in this paragraph, thereby pressurized equipment with spray guns, consistent with required or increasing overall risks to human health sometimes in proximity to hot, recommended workplace exposure and the environment. flammable substances such as tar. The limits. With the exception of hydrocarbon, and Exxsol blowing vii. Rigid Polyurethane and alternative manufacturers have Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock developed training to assist end-users in agents, these substitutes contain compounds that are exempt from the For rigid polyurethane and addressing the flammability hazards of definition of VOC. Of the substitutes polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, the flammable compounds in this end- listed above, only trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- saturated light HCs (C3–C6), CO2, water, use (Exxsol blowing agents and trifluoroprop-1-ene has an ODP and as ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing agents, ecomateTM); however, these alternatives discussed above for rigid polyurethane methyl formate, HFC–152a, HFO– have limited, if any, use in spray foams appliance foam, its impact on global 1234ze(E), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- in the United States.54 55 Flammability atmospheric ozone abundance is trifluoroprop-1-ene are acceptable expected to be statistically insignificant. alternatives with GWPs that range from 54 UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Decision Of the various substitutes listed in this zero to 124. Toxicity is not a significant XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Additional Information paragraph, ecomateTM, Exxsol blowing concern for these alternatives because on Alternatives to ODS. September, 2013. agents, formic acid, hydrocarbons, and they may be used for blowing laminated 55 UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible methyl formate are flammable, and the boardstock consistent with required or Foams Technical Options Committee, 2010 Assessment. This document is accessible at http:// others are nonflammable. The recommended workplace exposure ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ flammability hazards of the flammable limits. With the exception of HCs and FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report.pdf. compounds in this end-use can be Exxsol blowing agents, these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46153

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:56 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46155

applications, HFCs are used in closed cell foams should be subject to conditioning. EPA is not addressing numerous applications, including the unacceptability determinations, HCFC use for refrigeration and air certain mission-critical applications which under our current interpretation conditioning because CAA section such as foam blowing for which would otherwise only apply to the use 605(a) and our implementing appropriate substitutes have not yet of the foam blowing agent. We also seek regulations allows for continuing use of been identified. Past experience comment on whether the Agency should HCFCs to service equipment. We are indicates that transitions away from consider use of the foam blowing agent proposing that the listings would be CFC- and HCFC-blown foams in similar to apply to open cell foam and products modified 60 days following issuance of applications took several years due to containing open cell foam, and in a final rule promulgating this proposal. the challenging operational particular what would be the legal basis B. Why is EPA modifying the listings for environment and the lengthy for doing so. EPA also requests HCFCs? requalification process associated with comment on whether the proposed date human-rated space flight systems. provides an appropriate length of time EPA is proposing to modify the Under the acceptable for narrowed for transition and whether there should listings for these three HCFCs and use limits category, users of a restricted be different dates for certain foam end- blends containing these HCFCs to align agent within the narrowed use limits uses due to technical challenges that the SNAP listings with other Title VI category must make a reasonable effort may exist for some foam end-uses but regulations, specifically section 605 and to ascertain that other substitutes or not all. EPA is also interested in its implementing regulations at 40 CFR alternatives are not technically feasible. information concerning the supply of part 82 subpart A and section 610 and Users are expected to undertake a substitutes in sufficient quantities to its implementing regulations at 40 CFR thorough technical investigation of meet a domestic transition in the part 82 subpart C. alternatives to the otherwise restricted timeframe proposed in this action. EPA 1. Alignment of SNAP Listings for the substitute. Although users are not also takes comment on the proposed Three HCFCs With Regulations required to report the results of their exception for military or space- and Implementing CAA Sections 605 and investigations to EPA, users must aeronautics-related applications as 610 document these results, and retain them described above. CAA Section 605(a) explicitly in their files for the purpose of prohibits the introduction into interstate demonstrating compliance. VI. What is EPA proposing for HCFCs? Under a narrowed use limit, the end EPA is proposing to modify the commerce or the use of any class II user for a military or space- and listings for three HCFCs in certain end- substance as of January 1, 2015, unless aeronautics- related application would uses because the three HCFCs are such substance: (1) Has been used, recovered, and need to ascertain that other alternatives subject to the use restrictions in CAA recycled; are not technically feasible and section 605(a) and EPA’s implementing (2) is used and entirely consumed document the results of their analysis. regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. (except for trace quantities) in the See 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3). Documentation Additionally, the nonessential products production of other chemicals; should include descriptions of: ban under CAA section 610 also • (3) is used as a refrigerant in Process or product in which the restricts sale and distribution of certain appliances manufactured prior to substitute is needed; products containing or manufactured • January 1, 2020; or Substitutes examined and rejected; with these three HCFCs. We believe it (4) is listed as acceptable for use as a • Reason for rejection of other is important that the SNAP listings not fire suppression agent for nonresidential alternatives, e.g., performance, technical indicate that these HCFCs may be used applications in accordance with section or safety standards; and/or when another program under title VI of • Anticipated date other substitutes 612(c). the CAA would prevent such use. Thus, Through rulemaking, EPA accelerated to will be available and projected time for we are proposing to align the switching. January 1, 2010, the prohibitions on use requirements. The HCFCs addressed in and introduction into interstate EPA is seeking comment on this this rule are listed as acceptable or proposed narrowed use limitation for commerce for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, acceptable subject to use conditions in and HCFC–142b that has not been used, military or space- and aeronautics- the aerosols, foam blowing agents, fire related applications In addition, EPA is recovered, and recycled. See 40 CFR suppression and explosion protection 82.15(g). With respect to refrigeration also seeking comment on the timeframe agents, sterilants, and adhesives, for this narrowed use limitation, and air conditioning uses, EPA’s coatings and inks sectors. This in implementing regulations prohibit the recognizing that if all alternatives are addition to the proposed not qualified in advance of 2022, the use and introduction into interstate unacceptability of HCFC-containing commerce of these HCFCs, unless used, Agency may need to revisit and adjust refrigerants in MVAC systems (see the end date. recovered, and recycled, in equipment section V.B. of this preamble). manufactured on or after January 1, f. Summary A. What are the proposed modifications 2010. EPA’s proposal to modify the EPA seeks comments on changing the to the listings for the three HCFCs and listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–22, and listings for the proposed foam end-uses. in which end-uses? HCFC–142b, including blends that In particular, EPA is interested in EPA is proposing to modify the contain these HCFCs, in various whether there are specific uses other listings for HCFC–141b, HCFC–142b, applications is consistent with the than spray foam that require the use of and HCFC–22, as well as blends that accelerated dates contained in our HFC–134a, HFC–365mfc, HFC–245fa, contain these substances, from implementing regulations and covers and blends thereof, or the blends acceptable to unacceptable in all end-uses where these HCFCs have Formacel B, Formacel TI, or Formacel previously been listed as acceptable as sectors 56 except refrigeration and air Z–6 for reasons of fire safety or aerosols, refrigerants, foam blowing technical feasibility. We request 56 These three HCFCs have previously been listed agents, fire suppressants, cleaning comment on whether closed cell foam as unacceptable in several, but not all, SNAP solvents, sterilants, and adhesives, products and products containing sectors. coatings and inks.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46156 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Section 605(a) complements section EPA seeks comment on its proposal to aerosols or foams because of the 610, which prohibited the sale and modify the listings for HCFC–141b, potential for servicing the appliances distribution, as well as offer for sale and –142b, –22, and blends containing these throughout their use. Some distribution, in interstate commerce of substances. EPA is particularly manufacturers of motor vehicle air aerosol products and pressurized interested in comments on both the conditioners identified a potential dispensers containing a class II scope of the proposed modifications and concern that there may be a lack of substance (i.e., HCFCs), and plastic the timing. servicing infrastructure for low-GWP foam products containing or alternatives in markets outside the U.S. VII. Do SNAP requirements apply to manufactured with a class II substance, EPA recognizes that the transition to exports and imports? with limited exceptions.57 This alternatives may occur at a different statutory prohibition took effect on The requirements of the SNAP pace in different global markets. For January 1, 1994. Consequently, most program apply to both exports and example, the European Union is foams and aerosols have not used imports. EPA understands that some planning to transition to low-GWP HCFCs since 1994. manufacturers may be interested in alternatives for MVACs in 2017 which Recognizing that other HCFCs are not whether the listing decisions, if is several years earlier than what EPA is yet subject to the use and interstate finalized as proposed, would apply to proposing. However, other countries commerce prohibitions in section 605 their products. EPA has previously have not indicated any specific plan to and 40 CFR 82.15(g), EPA is not responded to comments about the transition to low-GWP alternatives for proposing to change the SNAP listings applicability of the SNAP program to MVACs. If finalized as proposed, HFC– for HCFCs other than HCFC–141b, products destined for export. Most 134a would be listed as unacceptable in –142b, and –22 and blends containing recently, in a final rule issued December model year 2021 and the those substances at this time. EPA may 20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment unacceptability listing would include revisit the acceptability of other HCFCs concerning whether appliances MVACs that will be exported. in a later rulemaking as appropriate. manufactured for export should be EPA applies the SNAP requirements allowed to have larger charge sizes than equally to imports and exports. 2. Anticipated Effects those being sold in the United States However, EPA understands the EPA does not anticipate that these (and thus not have to comply with the concerns for proper infrastructure for changes will have a significant effect on use conditions being established in that servicing appliances in markets outside the use of HCFC–141b, –142b, and –22 rule). EPA stated that: the U.S. EPA believes there is ample since existing regulations limit the use Under section 612 of the Clean Air time between now and model year 2021 of these three HCFCs (unless used, Act, the SNAP program is applicable to for such infrastructure to be established. recovered, and recycled) in almost all any person introducing a substitute into EPA welcomes comments and specific end-uses in the United States (see 40 interstate commerce. Interstate information on this topic. CFR 82.15(g)). For the sectors addressed commerce is defined in 40 CFR in this rulemaking, EPA is not aware of 82.104(n) as: The distribution or VIII. Statutory and Executive Order anyone using recovered, recycled or transportation of any product between Reviews reclaimed HCFC–22, HCFC–141b and one state, territory, possession or the A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory HCFC–142b. In addition, as a result of District of Columbia, and another state, Planning and Review the use restrictions in CAA section 605 territory, possession or the District of Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and 40 CFR 82.15(g), as well as the sale Columbia, or the sale, use or (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this and distribution restrictions on certain manufacture of any product in more action is a ‘‘significant regulatory products containing or manufactured than one state, territory, possession or action.’’ It raises novel legal or policy with these substances in CAA section the District of Columbia. The entry issues arising out of legal mandates, the 610 and 40 CFR part 82 subpart C, most points for which the product is President’s priorities, or the principles sectors have taken significant steps to introduced into interstate commerce are set forth in the Executive Order. transition to non-ODS substitutes. For the release of a product from the facility Accordingly, EPA submitted this action example, HCFCs in aerosol applications in which the product was to the Office of Management and Budget have been replaced by HCs, HFO– manufactured, the entry into a (OMB) for review under E.O. 12866 and 1234ze, roll-ons, pump sprays, and warehouse from which the domestic any changes made in response to OMB HFC–152a, excluding some niche manufacturer releases the product for recommendations have been technical applications that still rely on sale or distribution, and at the site of documented in the docket for this HCFCs not addressed in this action. United States Customs clearance. This action. HCFCs in foam blowing agents have definition applies to any appliances EPA conducted an analysis 58 that largely been replaced by, among other produced in the United States, considered the economic impacts of this things, methyl formate, HCs, Solstice– including appliances that will be proposed rule on small entities, as 1233zd(E), and carbon dioxide; any exported. (76 FR 78846) further discussed in the section C remaining HCFC use in this sector is Therefore, EPA concluded that the below. The analysis also considered limited to HCFCs not addressed in this same use conditions apply to appliances that, specific to refrigerants used in air action. For these reasons, we believe it being exported. conditioning systems for newly is technically feasible for sources to The range of sectors and end-uses manufactured light-duty vehicles, there comply with the proposed changes to covered by the SNAP program varies. are considerable environmental benefits the listings for these three HCFCs within Some end-uses, such as the refrigeration of a transition to alternative refrigerants 60 days of a final rule issued consistent and air conditioning sector, includes and there are costs associated with those with this proposal. appliances charged by OEMs and substitutions. Based on recent appliances typically field-charged. information in manufacturers’ product 57 Section 610(d) contains certain exceptions and Some appliances charged by OEMs are also authorizes EPA to grant exceptions in specific hermetically sealed and other circumstances. For the complete list of exceptions, 58 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening see EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part appliances are not. Furthermore, these Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing 82, subpart C. appliances differ from products such as Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46157

plans, a limited number of small governmental jurisdiction that is a (e.g., car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers may have been planning government of a city, county, town, manufacturers). About 500,000 small to meet the GHG standards but still school district or special district with a businesses could be subject to the continue to use HFC–134a beyond MY population of less than 50,000; and (3) rulemaking, although more than 99% of 2021 for a limited number of their a small organization that is any not-for- small businesses subject to this models. However, we believe there is profit enterprise which is independently proposed rulemaking would be time for any such manufacturers to owned and operated and is not expected to experience zero compliance make appropriate adjustments. These dominant in its field. costs. EPA continues to be interested in 59 manufacturers could incur costs After conducting an analysis that the potential impacts of the proposed attributable to this proposal considered the economic impacts of this rule on small entities and welcomes proposed rule on small entities, I certify (representing the proposed requirement comments on issues related to such that this action will not have a to cease use of HFC–134a by MY 2021), impacts, in particular technical but there would be environmental significant economic impact on a challenges, including time to transition, benefits in the form of increased substantial number of small entities. that may exist for some small entities reductions of GHG emissions from The requirements of this proposed rule MVAC systems which would not with respect to HFCs, if finalized as but not all. otherwise occur, assuming these proposed, would impact manufacturers D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act manufacturers also continue with their of some consumer and technical aerosol plans to achieve the reductions by products, retail food refrigeration This action contains no Federal means other than substitution of MVAC equipment, vending machines, motor mandates under the provisions of Title refrigerant. vehicles, and products containing II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act phenolic, polyisocyanurate, polyolefin, of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for B. Paperwork Reduction Act polyurethane, and polystyrene foams. State, local, or tribal governments or the This action does not impose any new The requirements of this proposed rule private sector. This action imposes no information collection burden. This with respect to HCFCs, if finalized as enforceable duty on any State, local, or proposed rule is an Agency proposed, would affect manufacturers of tribal governments. The enforceable determination. It contains no new aerosols, foams, solvent cleaning, fire requirements of this proposed rule requirements for reporting. The Office of suppression, and adhesives, coatings, related to prohibiting certain Management and Budget (OMB) has and inks. This rule’s provisions do not substitutes, including HFC–134a, R– previously approved the information create enforceable requirements for 404A and R–507A, would require new collection requirements contained in the refrigeration and air conditioning equipment to be manufactured using existing regulations in subpart G of 40 technicians, but they would indirectly other available options but would not CFR part 82 under the provisions of the affect technicians servicing motor require changes to existing equipment Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. vehicle air conditioning systems, retail that is already manufactured or 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB food refrigeration equipment, and purchased. Thus, this rule is not subject control number 2060–0226. This vending machines where the technician, Information Collection Request (ICR) rather than the refrigeration or AC to the requirements of sections 202 and included five types of respondent equipment owner, purchases servicing 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not reporting and recordkeeping activities equipment for different refrigerants. subject to the requirements of section pursuant to SNAP regulations: EPA expects these indirect impacts on 203 of UMRA because it contains no Submission of a SNAP petition, filing a technicians are minimal, because the regulatory requirements that might SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification transitions to different refrigerants significantly or uniquely affect small for test marketing activity, required by this rule are already governments. This regulation applies recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable occurring due to other regulations (e.g., directly to facilities that use these subject to use restrictions, and light duty vehicle GHG rule) and substances and not to governmental recordkeeping for small volume uses. corporate social responsibility entities. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s initiatives (e.g., Consumer Goods Forum E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 pledge concerning HFC refrigerants), and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. and because many of the still-acceptable This action does not have Federalism C. Regulatory Flexibility Act alternatives are already used for these implications. It will not have substantial refrigeration or air conditioning direct effects on the States, on the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) equipment types. Further, most generally requires an agency to prepare relationship between the national acceptable HFC refrigerant blends can government and the States, or on the a regulatory flexibility analysis of any be recovered and serviced using rule subject to notice-and-comment distribution of power and equipment that service technicians responsibilities among the various rulemaking requirements under the already own. In some uses, there is no Administrative Procedure Act or any levels of government, as specified in significant impact of the proposed rule Executive Order 13132. This regulation other statute unless the Agency certifies because the substitutes proposed to be that the rule will not have a significant applies directly to facilities that use prohibited are not widely used (e.g., use these substances and not to economic impact on a substantial of HFC–134a as a propellant in number of small entities. Small entities governmental entities. Thus, Executive consumer aerosol products, use of HFC– Order 13132 does not apply to this include small businesses, small 134a as a foam blowing agent in various organizations, and small governmental action. In the spirit of Executive Order polyurethane foams). A significant 13132, and consistent with EPA policy jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing portion of the businesses regulated to promote communications between the impacts of this rule on small under this rule are not small businesses entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on small business as defined by the Small 59 ICF International. Economic Impact Screening Business Administration’s (SBA) Analysis for Regulatory Options to Change Listing this proposed action from State and regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a Status of High-GWP Alternatives, 2014. local officials.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46158 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation I. National Technology Transfer and Docket Management System, Docket # and Coordination With Indian Tribal Advancement Act EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198. Governments Section 12(d) of the National Akerman, Nancy H. Hydrofluorocarbons and Technology Transfer and Advancement Climate Change: Summaries of Recent This action does not have tribal Scientific and Papers, 2013. implications, as specified in Executive Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 104–113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Ben and Jerry’s, 2014. Cleaner, Greener Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, Freezers. This document is accessible at 2000). It will not have substantial direct EPA to use voluntary consensus http://www.benjerry.com/values/how- standards in its regulatory activities effects on tribal governments, on the we-do-business/cleaner-greener-freezers. unless to do so would be inconsistent relationship between the Federal CCAC, 2012. Technology Forum on Climate- with applicable law or otherwise Friendly Alternatives in Commercial government and Indian tribes, or on the impractical. Voluntary consensus Refrigeration. Meeting Summary. 8 distribution of power and standards are technical standards (e.g., December 2012. This document is responsibilities between the Federal materials specifications, test methods, accessible at http://www.unep.org/ccac/ Portals/50162/docs/TechForum/ government and Indian tribes, as sampling procedures, and business specified in Executive Order 13175. FINAL%20REPORT%20Commercial%20 practices) that are developed or adopted Technology%20Forum%20final.pdf. EPA specifically solicits additional by voluntary consensus standards comment on this proposed action from Coca Cola, 2012. 2012/2013 GRI Report. This bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to document is accessible at: http://assets. tribal officials. provide Congress, through OMB, coca-colacompany.com/44/d4/e4eb8b G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of explanations when the Agency decides 6f4682804bdf6ba2ca89b8/2012-2013-gri- report.pdf. Children From Environmental Health not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This Coca Cola, 2014. Coca-Cola Installs 1 and Safety Risks Millionth HFC-Free Cooler Globally, proposed rule does not involve Preventing 5.25MM Metric Tons of CO2, This action is not subject to Executive technical standards. January 22, 2014. This document is Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, J. Executive Order 12898: Federal accessible at http://www.coca-cola 1997) because it is not economically Actions To Address Environmental company.com/press-center/press- significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and releases/coca-cola-installs-1-millionth- Justice in Minority Populations and hfc-free-cooler-globally-preventing- because the Agency does not believe the Low-Income Populations environmental health or safety risks 525mm-metrics-tons-of-co2. addressed by this action present a Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR Consumer Specialty Products Association 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal (CSPA), 2012. 2011 Aerosol Pressurized disproportionate risk to children. This Products Survey—61st Annual Products proposed rule restricts the use of certain executive policy on environmental Survey. April 15, 2012. substitutes that have greater overall justice. Its main provision directs Daimler, ‘‘Climate Change: EU Scientists Say risks for human health and the Federal agencies, to the greatest extent Daimler’s Safety Concerns About New environment, primarily due to their practicable and permitted by law, to Auto Refrigerant Are Unwarranted,’’ high global warming potential. The make environmental justice part of their Stephen Gardner, BNA Inc., Daily reduction in GHG emissions would mission by identifying and addressing, Environment Report, March 11, 2014. as appropriate, disproportionately high This document is accessible at http:// provide climate benefits for all people, _ and adverse human health or news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split including benefits for children and display.adp?fedfid=42760350&vname= future generations. The public is invited environmental effects of their programs, dennotallissues&jd=a0e7p0q0q7&split= to submit comments or identify peer- policies, and activities on minority 0. reviewed studies and data that assess populations and low-income Directive 2006/40/EC of the European effects of early life exposure to the populations in the United States. EPA Parliament and of the Council of 17 May alternatives addressed in this action. has determined that this proposed rule 2006 (EU MAC Directive). This will not have disproportionately high document is accessible at http://eur- H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That and adverse human health or lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ Significantly Affect Energy Supply, environmental effects on minority or LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0040: Distribution, or Use low-income populations because it EN:HTM. Emerson Climate Technologies, 2014. increases the level of environmental This action is not a ‘‘significant Refrigerants. March 13, 2014. protection for all affected populations EPA, 2009. Endangerment and Cause or energy action’’ as defined in Executive without having any disproportionately Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Order 13211, (66 FR 28355 (May 22, high and adverse human health or Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean 2001)) because it is not likely to have a environmental effects on any Air Act. Technical Support Document. significant adverse effect on the supply, population, including any minority or December 7, 2009. This document is distribution, or use of energy. Aerosol low-income population. This proposed accessible at: www.epa.gov/ uses are not related to the supply, climatechange/Downloads/ rule, if finalized, would prohibit a _ distribution, or use of energy. For the endangerment/Endangerment TSD.pdf. number of substances with ODPs or EPA, 2012. Factsheet: Summary of end-uses that are related to energy high GWPs. The reduction in ODS and Refrigerant Reclamation 2000–2012. This effects such as refrigeration and air GWP emissions would assist in data is accessible at: www.epa.gov/ conditioning, a number of alternatives restoring the stratospheric ozone layer spdpublc/title6/608/reclamation/ are available to replace those and provide climate benefits. recsum.pdf. refrigerants that are proposed as EPA, 2013. Benefits of Addressing HFCs unacceptable in this action; many of the IX. References under the Montreal Protocol, June, 2013. alternatives are as energy efficient or This preamble references the EPA, 2014. Climate Benefits of the SNAP more energy efficient than the following documents, which are also in Program Status Change Rule, June 2014. EPA, Greenchill. ‘‘Advanced Refrigeration’’. substitutes being proposed as the Air Docket at the address listed in This document is accessible at: http:// unacceptable. Thus, we have concluded Section I.B.1. Unless specified www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ that this rule is not likely to have any otherwise, all documents are available documents/gc_storecertprogram adverse energy effects. electronically through the Federal 08232011.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46159

EPA Memorandum: ‘‘Notes from Meeting IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System emissions to future climate forcing. with Nissan Concerning Alternative Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Proceedings of the National Academy of Refrigerant Transition’’, Tad Wysor, Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, Sciences USA 106: 10949–10954. Wang April 2014. H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. GE, 2008. General Electric Significant New Change 2013: The Physical Science ‘‘Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP’s Alternatives Policy Program Submission Basis. Contribution of Working Group I Potential Impact on Atmospheric to the United States Environmental to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Ozone.’’ Department of Atmospheric Protection Agency, October 2008. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, Honeywell, 2014. Aerosols Overview— Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. IL. September 26, 2011. Honeywell Solstice® Propellant. EPA Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Weissler, Paul, ‘‘A/C Industry Faces meeting. February 27, 2014. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and Challenges From Daimler R–1234yf ICF, 2014a. Market Characterization of the P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge Issue, Explores Other Options,’’ U.S. Aerosols Industry. Prepared for the University Press, Cambridge, United Automotive Engineering International, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. April 2, 2013. This document is May, 2014. IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: accessible at http://articles.sae.org/ ICF, 2014b. Market Characterization of the Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the 11870/. U.S. Foams Industry. Prepared for the Global Climate System: Issues Related to WMO, 2010. World Meteorological U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hydrofluorocarbons and Organization. Scientific Assessment of May, 2014. Perfluorocarbons (Cambridge Univ Press, Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone ICF, 2014c. Market Characterization of the New York). Research and Monitoring Project— Montzka, S.A.: HFCs in the Atmosphere: U.S Commercial Refrigeration Industry. Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Switzerland, 2011. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. Protection Agency. May, 2014. Nelson, Gabe ‘‘Automakers’ switch to new List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 ICF, 2014d. Market Characterization of the refrigerant will accelerate with EPA Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning credits, European mandate’’ Automobile Environmental protection, Industry. Prepared for the U.S. News, December 30, 2013. This Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental Protection Agency. May, document is accessible at http://www. Air pollution control, Incorporation by 2014. autonews.com/article/20131230/OEM01/ reference, Recycling, Reporting and ICF, 2014e. Assessment of the Potential 312309996/warmingto-the-idea. recordkeeping requirements, Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on NOAA. This data is accessible at ftp://ftp. Stratospheric ozone layer. Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. February, 2014. Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. ‘‘Atmospheric Dated: July 9, 2014. ICF, 2014f. Economic Impact Screening Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Gina McCarthy, Analysis for Regulatory Options to Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3- Administrator. Change Listing Status of High-GWP trichloropropylene and trans-1,2- Alternatives. April, 2014. For the reasons stated in the dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 ICF, 2014g. Revised Preliminary Cost- model.’’ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867– Analysis for Regulatory Options to 10874, 2010. CFR part 82 as follows: Change Listing Status of High-GWP UNEP, 2010. Report of the Rigid and Flexible Alternatives. June, 2014. Foams Technical Options Committee, PART 82—PROTECTION OF IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 2010 Assessment. This document is STRATOSPHERIC OZONE National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/ Prepared by the National Greenhouse Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ ■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston FTOC/FTOC-2010-Assessment-Report. continues to read as follows: H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and pdf. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute for UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in 7671q. Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, Japan. This document is accessible at A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, Subpart G—Significant New http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/ 2011. This document is accessible at Alternatives Policy Program 2006gl/index.html. http://www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/ _ IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The pdf/HFC report.pdf. ■ 2. Amend Subpart G by adding Physical Science Basis. Contribution of UNEP, 2013. Report of the Technology and Appendix U to read as follows: Working Group I to the Fourth Economic Assessment Panel, Volume 2: Assessment Report of the Decision XXIV/7 Task Force Report, Appendix U to Subpart G of Part 82— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Additional Information on Alternatives Unacceptable Substitutes and Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. to ODS. September, 2013. This document Substitutes Subject To Use Restrictions Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. is accessible at http://ozone.unep.org/ Listed in the [DATE OF PUBLICATION Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, TEAP_Reports/TEAP_ OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL United Kingdom and New York, NY, TaskForce%20XXIV-7-May2013.pdf. REGISTER] Final Rule, Effective [DATE USA. This document is accessible at Velders, G. J.M., D.W. Fahey, J.S. Daniel, M. 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_ McFarland, S.O. Andersen (2009) The FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. large contribution of projected HFC REGISTER].

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46160 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—AEROSOLS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Propellants ...... HFC–125 ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- HFC–125 has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry ary 1, 2016 Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 354–33–6 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane. HFC–125 has a high GWP of 3,500. Other sub- stitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, ex- ported, distributed and used after that date. Propellants ...... HCFC–22 and HCFC– Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 142b. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for aerosols is prohib- PUBLICATION OF ited as of January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations FINAL RULE] at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. These propellants have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065, respectively. Solvents ...... HCFC–141b ...... Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–141b for aerosols is prohibited as of January PUBLICATION OF 1, 2015 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 FINAL RULE] subpart A. HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion po- tential of 0.11.

TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Propellants ..... HFC–134a .... Acceptable As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service subject to use in: Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811– use condi- • Metered dose inhalers for the treatment 97–2 and it is also known by the name tions. of asthma and chronic obstructive pul- 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has monary disease, allergic rhinitis, and a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Use is al- other diseases where aerosols can be lowed for the specified uses because of the used for systemic delivery through lung, greater technical and safety demands in nose, or other organs these applications compared to other aer- • cleaning products for removal of grease, osol applications. flux and other soils from electrical equip- It is prohibited to use aerosol products other ment or electronics than those specified here using HFC–134a • lubricants for electrical equipment or that are manufactured on or after January electronics 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propel- • sprays for aircraft maintenance lant that are manufactured prior to January • pesticides for use near electrical wires or 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, in aircraft, in total release insecticide distributed and used after that date. foggers, or in certified organic use pes- ticides for which EPA has specifically dis- allowed all other lower-GWP propellantsmold release agents • lubricants and cleaners for spinnerettes for synthetic fabrics • duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semi- conductor chips, and specimens under electron microscopes • document preservation sprays • wound care sprays topical coolant sprays for pain alleviationproducts for removing bandage adhesives from skin.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46161

TABLE 2—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information

Propellants ..... HFC–227ea .. Acceptable As of January 1, 2016, acceptable only for HFC–227ea has a Chemical Abstracts Serv- subject to use in metered dose inhalers for the treat- ice Registry Number (CAS Reg. No.) of use condi- ment of asthma and chronic obstructive 431–89–0 and it is also known by the name tions. pulmonary disease. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. HFC– 227ea has a relatively high GWP of 3,220. Use is allowed for metered dose inhalers because of the greater technical and safety demands in this application compared to other aerosol applications. It is prohibited to use aerosol products other than metered dose inhalers using HFC– 227ea that are manufactured on or after January 1, 2016. Aerosol products using this propellant that are manufactured prior to January 1, 2016 may be sold, imported, exported, distributed and used after that date.

TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Retail food refrigeration R–404A ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% (new and retrofit). ary 1, 2016. HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are avail- able for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Retail food refrigeration R–507A ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and (new and retrofit). ary 1, 2016. 50% HFC–143a. It has a high GWP of approxi- mately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Retail food refrigeration HFC–227ea, R–407B, R– Unacceptable as of Janu- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to (condensing units and su- 421B, R–422A, R–422C, ary 1, 2016. 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end- permarket systems)(new). R–422D, R–428A, R– use with lower overall risk to human health and the 434A. environment. Retail food refrigeration R–407B, R–421B, R– Unacceptable as of Janu- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from 2,729 to (condensing units and su- 422A, R–422C, R–422D, ary 1, 2016. 3,607. Other substitutes are available for this end- permarket sys- R–428A, R–434A. use with lower overall risk to human health and the tems)(retrofit). environment. Retail food refrigeration HFC–134a ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (stand-alone units only) ary 1, 2016. Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also (new only). known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environ- ment. Retail food refrigeration- FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC– Unacceptable as of Janu- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approxi- (stand-alone units only) 227ea, IKON B, KDD6, ary 1, 2016. mately 550 to 3,607. Other substitutes are available (new only). R–125/290/134a/600a for this end-use with lower overall risk to human (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R– health and the environment. 407A, R–407B, R–407C, R–407F, R–410A, R– 410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–421B, R–422A, R– 422B, R–422C, R–422D, R–424A, R–426A, R– 428A, R–434A, R–437A, R–438A, RS–24 (2002 formulation), RS–44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, THR–03. Vending machines (new and R–404A ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- R–404A is a blend, by weight, of 44% HFC–125, 4% retrofit). ary 1, 2016. HFC–134a, and 52% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,920. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Vending machines (new and R–507A ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- R–507A is a blend, by weight, of 50% HFC–125 and retrofit). ary 1, 2016. 50% HFC–143a. It has a GWP of approximately 3,990. Other substitutes are available for this end- use with lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Vending machines (new HFC–134a ...... Unacceptable as of Janu- HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry only). ary 1, 2016. Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environ- ment. Vending machines (new FOR12A, FOR12B, IKON Unacceptable as of Janu- These refrigerants have GWPs ranging from approxi- only). B, KDD6, R–125/290/ ary 1, 2016. mately 550 to 3,085. Other substitutes are available 134a/600a (55.0/1.0/ for this end-use with lower overall risk to human 42.5/1.5), R–407C, R– health and the environment. 410A, R–410B, R–417A, R–421A, R–422B, R– 422C, R–422D, R–426A, R–437A, R–438A, RS– 24 (2002 formulation), SP34E. Motor vehicle air condi- HFC–134a ...... Unacceptable as of Model HFC–134a has a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry tioning (new equipment in Year (MY) 2021. Number (CAS Reg. No.) of 811–97–2 and it is also passenger cars and light- known by the name 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoropropane. duty trucks only). HFC–134a has a relatively high GWP of 1,430. Other substitutes are available for this end-use with lower overall risk to human health and the environ- ment. Motor vehicle air condi- R–406A, R–414A (HCFC Unacceptable as of MY These refrigerants all contain HCFCs. They have tioning (new equipment in Blend Xi, GHG–X4), R– 2017. GWPs ranging from 1,480 to 2,340 and ODPs rang- passenger cars and light- 414B (HCFC Blend Omi- ing from 0.012 to 0.056. Other substitutes are avail- duty trucks only). cron), HCFC Blend Delta able for this end-use with lower overall risk to (Free Zone), Freeze 12, human health and the environment. GHG–X5, HCFC Blend Lambda (GHG–HP). Motor vehicle air condi- R–416A (FRIGC FR–12, Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately tioning (new equipment in HCFC Blend Beta). 2017. 1,080 and an ODP of approximately 0.008. Other passenger cars and light- substitutes are available for this end-use with lower duty trucks only). overall risk to human health and the environment. Motor vehicle air condi- SP34E ...... Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately tioning (new equipment in 2017. 1,410. Other substitutes are available for this end- passenger cars and light- use with lower overall risk to human health and the duty trucks only). environment. Motor vehicle air condi- R–426A (RS–24, new for- Unacceptable as of MY This blend has a relatively high GWP of approximately tioning (new equipment in mulation). 2017. 1,510. Other substitutes are available for this end- passenger cars and light- use with lower overall risk to human health and the duty trucks only). environment.

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Rigid Poly- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane: Ap- HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- pliance. HFC–365mfc rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof; been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46163

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Rigid Poly- HFC–134a and Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane: Formacel TI. ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Spray. rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute other alternatives are not tech- is needed; nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Poly- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane: HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Commercial HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- Refrigeration and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: and Sandwich thereof; been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Panels. Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Flexible Poly- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane. HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof. been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute other alternatives are not tech- is needed; nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Poly- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane: HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Slabstock and HFC–365mfc rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- Other. and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof; been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Rigid Poly- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- urethane and HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Polyisocyanur- HFC–365mfc rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- ate Laminated and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: Boardstock. thereof. been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute other alternatives are not tech- is needed; nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46164 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—FOAM BLOWING AGENTS—SUBSTITUTES ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO NARROWED USE LIMITS—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information

Polystyrene: Ex- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- truded Sheet. HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof, been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Polystyrene: Ex- HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- truded HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Boardstock HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and Billet. and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof, been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel B, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Integral Skin HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- Polyurethane. HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof; been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Polyolefin ...... HFC–134a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- HFC–245fa, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- HFC–365mfc, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- and blends Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: thereof; been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute Formacel TI, other alternatives are not tech- is needed; and Formacel nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; Z–6. ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching. Phenolic Insula- HFC–143a, Acceptable Sub- Acceptable until January 1, 2022 Users are required to document and retain the re- tion Board and HFC–134a, ject to Nar- only in military or space- and sults of their technical investigation of alter- Bunstock. HFC–245fa, rowed Use aeronautics-related applications natives for the purpose of demonstrating compli- HFC–365mfc, Limits. where reasonable efforts have ance. Information should include descriptions of: and blends been made to ascertain that • Process or product in which the substitute thereof. other alternatives are not tech- is needed; nically feasible due to perform- • Substitutes examined and rejected; ance or safety requirements. • Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety standards; and/or • Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching.

TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

All ...... Blends of HCFC–141b ...... Unacceptable effective HCFC–141b has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11 [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER under the Montreal Protocol. EPA previously found PUBLICATION OF HCFC–141b unacceptable in all foam blowing end- FINAL RULE]. uses (appendix M to subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). HCFC–141b has an ODP of 0.11.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46165

TABLE 5—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further Information

Polyolefin ...... HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin and blends thereof. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b for foam blowing is pro- PUBLICATION OF hibited after January 1, 2010 under EPA’s regula- FINAL RULE]. tions at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A unless used, re- covered, and recycled. These compounds have ozone depletion potentials of 0.055 and 0.065 re- spectively under the Montreal Protocol. Rigid Polyurethane: Appli- HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with ance. HFC–365mfc and blends ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- thereof; Formacel TI, where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. Rigid Polyurethane: Spray ... HFC–134a and Formacel Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with TI. ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. narrowed use limit. Rigid Polyurethane: Com- HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with mercial Refrigeration and HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- Sandwich Panels. blends thereof; Formacel where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. TI, and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. Flexible Polyurethane ...... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- blends thereof. where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. narrowed use limit. Rigid Polyurethane: HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with Slabstock and Other. HFC–365mfc and blends ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- thereof; Formacel TI, where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. Rigid Polyurethane and HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with Polyisocyanurate Lami- HFC–365mfc and blends ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- nated Boardstock. thereof. where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. narrowed use limit. Polystyrene: Extruded Sheet HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- blends thereof, Formacel where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. TI, and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. Polystyrene: Extruded HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with Boardstock and Billet. HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- blends thereof, Formacel where allowed under a ment, including lower GWP. B, and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. Integral Skin Polyurethane .. HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- blends thereof; Formacel where allowed under a ment Other substitutes are available for this end-use TI, and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. with lower overall risk to human health and the envi- ronment, including lower GWP. Polyolefin ...... HFC–134a, HFC–245fa, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with HFC–365mfc, and ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- blends thereof; Formacel where allowed under a ment Other substitutes are available for this end-use TI, and Formacel Z–6. narrowed use limit. with lower overall risk to human health and the envi- ronment, including lower GWP. Phenolic Insulation Board HFC–143a, HFC–134a, Unacceptable as of Janu- Other substitutes are available for this end-use with and Bunstock. HFC–245fa, HFC– ary 1, 2017 except lower overall risk to human health and the environ- 365mfc, and blends where allowed under a ment, including GWP. thereof. narrowed use limit.

TABLE 6—FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION AGENTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Total Flooding ...... HCFC–22 ...... Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–22 for total flooding fire suppression and ex- PUBLICATION OF plosion protection is prohibited as of January 1, FINAL RULE]. 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.055.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 46166 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7—STERILANTS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Sterilants ...... Blends containing HCFC– Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin 22. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–22 for sterilants is prohibited as of January PUBLICATION OF 1, 2010 under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 82 FINAL RULE]. subpart A. HCFC–22 has an ozone depletion poten- tial of 0.055.

TABLE 8—ADHESIVES, COATINGS AND INKS—UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Further information

Adhesives, coatings and HCFC–141b and blends Unacceptable effective Use or introduction into interstate commerce of virgin inks. thereof. [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER HCFC–141b for adhesives, coatings and inks is pro- PUBLICATION OF hibited as of January 1, 2015 under EPA’s regula- FINAL RULE]. tions at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A. This chemical has an ozone depletion potential of 0.11.

[FR Doc. 2014–18494 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:30 Aug 05, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06AUP4.SGM 06AUP4 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4