# Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for Propane > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-08163 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** April 18, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 22810 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663; FRL-9941-84-OAR] RIN 2060-AS80 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Proposed New Listings of Substitutes; Changes of Listing Status; and Reinterpretation of Unacceptability for Closed Cell Foam Products Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; and Revision of Clean Air Act Section 608 Venting Prohibition for Propane AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy program, this action proposes to list a number of substances as acceptable, subject to use conditions; to list several substances as unacceptable; and to modify the listing status for certain substances from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable . Specifically, this action proposes to list as acceptable, subject to use restrictions, propane and HFO-1234yf in the refrigeration and air conditioning, and 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene in the fire suppression and explosion protection sectors; to list as unacceptable certain hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon blends in specific end-uses in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector; and to modify the listing status for certain high-global warming potential alternatives for certain end-uses in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. This action also proposes to exempt propane in certain refrigeration end-uses from the Clean Air Act section 608 prohibition on venting, release, or disposal on the basis of current evidence that its venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment. In addition, this action proposes to apply unacceptability determinations for foam-blowing agents to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are manufactured or imported using these foam-blowing agents. This action also proposes to clarify the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X®), which is currently listed as both acceptable and acceptable subject to use conditions, by removing the listing as acceptable subject to use conditions . DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2016. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify the contact listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May 3, 2016. If a hearing is held, it will take place on or about May 18, 2016 in Washington, DC and further information will be provided on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap . ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chenise Farquharson, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205 T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7768; email address: Farquharson.chenise@epa.gov . Notices and rulemakings under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612? C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? F. How are SNAP determinations updated? G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify the listing status of an alternative? H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program? III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed action? IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs? A. Summary of Petitions B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and Petitions V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section 608? A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 608? B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, release, or disposal of refrigerant substitutes? C. What did EPA recently propose regarding management of refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 608? VI. What is EPA proposing in this action? A. Retail Food Refrigeration and Stationary AC 1. Proposed Listing of Propane as Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Commercial Ice Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment a. What are the affected end-uses? b. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? c. What are the proposed use conditions? d. What recommendations does EPA have for the safe use of propane? e. When would the listing apply? f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 2. Proposed Exemption for Propane From the Venting Prohibition Under CAA Section 608 for the End-Uses in the Proposed New SNAP Listing a. What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses in this action would pose a threat to the environment? b. What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses in this action should be exempted from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608? c. When would the exemption from the venting prohibition apply? d. What is the relationship between this proposed exemption under CAA section 608 and other EPA rules? e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 3. Proposed Listing of New Refrigerants as Unacceptable a. Proposed Listing of Certain Flammable Refrigerants as Unacceptable for Retrofits in Unitary Split AC Systems and Heat Pumps i. What is the affected end-use? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. When would the listings apply? v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? b. Proposed Listing of Propylene and R-443A as Unacceptable for New Residential and Light Commercial AC and Heat Pumps, Cold Storage Warehouses, and Centrifugal and Positive Displacement Chillers i. What are the affected end-uses? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. When would the listings apply? v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 4. Proposed Changes in Listing Status a. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Centrifugal Chillers i. What is the affected end-use? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA proposing? v. When would the status change? vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? b. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Positive Displacement Chillers i. What is the affected end-use? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. What narrowed use limits for military marine vessels and human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment is EPA proposing? v. When would the status change? vi. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vii. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? c. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Cold Storage Warehouses i. What is the affected end-use? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. When would the status change? v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? e. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Refrigerants for New Household Refrigerators and Freezers i. What is the affected end-use? ii. Which refrigerants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? iii. How do these proposed unacceptable refrigerants compare to other refrigerants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria? iv. When would the status change? v. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? vi. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? B. Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning 1. Proposed Listing of HFO-1234yf as Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Newly Manufactured MVAC Systems 2. What is the affected end-use? 3. How does HFO-1234yf compare to other refrigerants for these MVAC applications with respect to SNAP criteria? 4. What are the proposed use conditions? 5. When would the listing apply? 6. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? 7. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? C. Foam Blowing Agents 1. Proposed Change of Status for Certain HFC Foam Blowing Agents for Rigid PU Spray Foam a. What is the affected end-use? b. Which foam blowing agents is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? c. How do the proposed unacceptable blowing agents compare to other blowing agents for these applications with respect to SNAP criteria? d. What narrowed use limits for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications is EPA proposing? e. When would the status change? f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 2. Proposed Revision To Change of Status Date of Certain HFCs and HFC Blends for Space- and Aeronautics-Related Foam Applications a. What are the affected end-uses? b. Which foam blowing agents are affected? c. When would the status change? d. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 3. Proposed Change of Status for Methylene Chloride in Flexible PU, Integral Skin PU, and Polyolefin Foams a. What are the affected end-uses? b. How does methylene chloride compare to other blowing agents for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? c. When would the status change? d. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? e. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 4. Proposed Application of Listings to Foam Products a. What are the affected end-uses? b. How would this proposal change the treatment of foam products under SNAP? c. How do other stratospheric ozone protection requirements apply to foam products? d. How is EPA reexamining treatment of foam products under SNAP? e. When would use of closed cell foam products with unacceptable blowing agents be unacceptable? f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? D. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection 1. Proposed Listing of 2-Bromo-3,3,3-Trifluoropropene (2-BTP) as Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Total Flooding and Streaming a. What are the affected end-uses? b. How does 2-BTP compare to other fire suppressants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? c. What are the proposed use conditions? d. What further information is EPA providing in the acceptable, subject to use conditions, listing for 2-BTP? e. When would the listing apply? f. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? g. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 2. Proposed Change of Status for Certain Perfluorocarbons a. What is the affected end-use? b. Which fire suppressants is EPA proposing to list as unacceptable? c. How do the proposed unacceptable fire suppressants compare to other fire suppressants for this end-use with respect to SNAP criteria? d. When would the status change? e. What is the relationship between this proposed SNAP rule and other federal rules? f. On which topics is EPA specifically requesting comment? 3. Proposed Removal of Powdered Aerosol D in Total Flooding From the List of Substitutes Acceptable for Use Subject to Use Conditions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations VIII. References I. General Information A. Executive Summary Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is required to evaluate substitutes 1 to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) for their risks to human health and the environment. EPA reviews substitutes within a comparative risk framework. More specifically, section 612 provides that EPA must prohibit the use of a substitute where EPA has determined that there are other alternatives that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment. Thus, EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which implements section 612, does not provide a static list of alternatives. Instead, the program evolves the list as EPA makes decisions informed by our overall understanding of the environmental and human health impacts as well as our current knowledge about other alternatives. In the more than twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated, EPA has modified the SNAP lists many times, most often by expanding the list of acceptable substitutes. However, in some cases, the SNAP list has been modified by listing a substitute as unacceptable for one or more end-uses or by restricting the use of a previously listed substitute by changing its status for a particular end-use to unacceptable, acceptable subject to use conditions, or acceptable subject to narrowed use. 1 The terms “alternatives” and “substitutes” are used interchangeably in this document. In the decades since ODS were first invented in the 1920s, American consumers relied on products using ODS for diverse uses including aerosols, air conditioning, insulation, solvent cleaning, and fire protection. The agreement by governments to phase out production of ODS under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer led to inevitable questions about whether suitable alternatives could be found in all cases, and in the larger sense, about how to limit negative societal impacts from use of alternatives. Over the past twenty years, the SNAP program has played an important role in assisting with a continuous smooth transition to safer alternatives, by addressing in concrete and highly technical terms, end-use by end-use, these myriad issues. From the first SNAP framework rule published in 1994, which provided confidence and certainty by identifying safer alternatives in key consumer and industrial uses, the SNAP program has continued to ensure that businesses and consumers have access to information about suitable alternatives. The SNAP program works with many stakeholders, domestically and abroad, to continuously evaluate and provide updates on safer alternatives and new technologies. Thanks to these efforts and the work of individuals, businesses, and organizations, the transitions generally have been successful. Perhaps the best evidence of the program's success has been the lack of fanfare with which so many important consumer and industrial uses have moved to adopt safer SNAP-listed alternatives. When reviewing a substitute, EPA compares the risk posed by that substitute to the risks posed by other alternatives and determines whether that specific substitute under review poses significantly more risk than other alternatives for the same use. EPA recently has begun to review the lists in a broader manner to determine whether substitutes added to the lists early in the program pose significantly more risk than substitutes that have more recently been added. As with initial listing decisions, decisions to change the status of an already listed alternative are based on applying our comparative risk framework. Global warming potential (GWP) is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall evaluation of the alternatives under the SNAP program. The President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2 states that, “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.” Furthermore, the CAP states that EPA will “use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.” On July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), EPA issued a final regulation that was our first effort to take a broader look at the SNAP lists, where we focused on those listed substitutes that have a high GWP relative to other alternatives in specific end-uses, while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk. 2 The White House, 2013. President's Climate Action Plan. This document is accessible at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. In this action, EPA is proposing to list a number of substances as acceptable, subject to use restrictions; to list several substances as unacceptable; and to modify the listing status for certain substances from acceptable to unacceptable. We performed a comparative risk analysis, based on our criteria for review, with other alternatives for the relevant end-uses. For particular substances, EPA found significant potential differences in risk with respect to one or more specific criteria, such as flammability, toxicity, or local air quality concerns, while otherwise posing comparable levels of risk to those of other alternatives in specific end-uses. EPA is also proposing that the existing listing decisions for foam blowing agents apply to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See section VI.C.4 for the details of this proposal. Additionally, EPA is proposing to list propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration equipment. EPA is proposing to exempt propane in these end-uses from the venting prohibition under CAA section 608(c)(2). See section VI.A.2.a, “What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses in this action would pose a threat to the environment?” for the details of this proposal. Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, this action does not specify that any alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses. In the case of refrigeration and air conditioning (AC), we consider new equipment to be a separate end-use from retrofitting existing equipment with a different refrigerant from that for which the equipment was originally designed. EPA is not setting a “risk threshold” for any specific SNAP criterion, such that the only acceptable substitutes pose risk below a specified level of risk. Because the substitutes available and the types of risk they may pose vary by sector and end-use and under the SNAP comparative risk framework, our review focuses on the specific end-use and the alternatives for that end-use, including the other risks alternatives might pose. Thus, there is no bright line that can be established. Also, EPA recognizes that there are a range of substitutes with various uses that include both fluorinated ( e.g., hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)) and non-fluorinated ( e.g., hydrocarbons (HCs), carbon dioxide (CO 2 )) substitutes that may pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. Consistent with CAA section 612 as we have historically interpreted it under the SNAP program, EPA is proposing both initial listings and certain modifications to the current lists based on our evaluation of the substitutes addressed in this action using the SNAP criteria for evaluation and considering the current suite of other alternatives for the specific end-use at issue. 1. Proposed Acceptable Alternatives, With Use Conditions, by End-Use (Initial Listings) (1) For refrigeration, we are proposing to list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • Propane in new commercial ice machines, new water coolers, and new very low temperature refrigeration equipment. (2) For motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) systems, we are proposing to list, as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • HFO-1234yf in newly manufactured medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), heavy-duty (HD) pickup trucks, and complete HD vans. (3) For fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, we are proposing to list as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • 2-BTP as a total flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary power units (APUs) on aircraft; and • 2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld extinguishers in aircraft. 2. Proposed Unacceptable Alternatives by End-Use (Initial Listings) (1) For retrofit residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps—unitary split AC systems and heat pumps, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • All refrigerants identified as flammability Class 3 in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34-2013; and • All refrigerants meeting the criteria for flammability Class 3 in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2013. These include, but are not limited to, refrigerant products sold under the names R-22a, 22a, Blue Sky 22a refrigerant, Coolant Express 22a, DURACOOL-22a, EC-22, Ecofreeeze EF-22a, EF-22a, Envirosafe 22a, ES-22a, Frost 22a, HC-22a, Maxi-Fridge, MX-22a, Oz-Chill 22a, Priority Cool, and RED TEK 22a. (2) For new residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps, cold storage warehouses, centrifugal chillers, and positive displacement chillers, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • Propylene and R-443A. 3. Proposed Change of Listing Status by End-Use: (1) For new centrifugal chillers, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, as of January 1, 2024 • FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245fa, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), and THR-03. (2) For new positive displacement chillers, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, except as otherwise allowed under a narrowed use limit, as of January 1, 2024 • FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/134a/600a (28.1/70/1.9), R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 composition), SP34E, and THR-03. (3) For new centrifugal chillers, we are proposing to list as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024 • HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment (4) For new positive displacement chillers, we are proposing to list as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, as of January 1, 2024 • HFC-134a for military marine vessels and HFC-134a and R-404A for human-rated spacecraft and related support equipment (5) For new cold storage warehouses, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2023 • HFC-227ea, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-423A, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-438A, R-507A, and RS-44 (2003 composition). (6) For new retail food refrigeration (refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment), we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021 • HFC-227ea, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-44 (2003 formulation). (7) For new household refrigerators and freezers, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2021 • FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, KDD6, R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), SP34E, and THR-03. (8) For rigid polyurethane (PU) high-pressure two-component spray foam, we are proposing to list as unacceptable for all uses, except military or space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2020; and as unacceptable for military or space- and aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025 • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI. 3 3 Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. (9) For rigid PU low-pressure two-component spray foam, we are proposing to list as unacceptable for all uses, except military or space- aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, for military or space- aeronautics-related applications, as of January 1, 2021; and as unacceptable for military or space- aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025 • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI. 4 4 Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2021, may be used after that date. (10) For rigid PU one-component foam sealants, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020 • HFC-134a, HFC-245fa, and blends thereof; blends of HFC-365mfc with at least four percent HFC-245fa, and commercial blends of HFC-365mfc with seven to 13 percent HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc; and Formacel TI. 5 5 Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. (11) For all foam blowing end-uses except for rigid PU spray foam, we are proposing for all HFCs and HFC blends previously listed as unacceptable for space- aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2022 that • These HFCs and HFC blends would be unacceptable for space- aeronautics-related applications as of January 1, 2025. (12) For flexible PU foam applications, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of 30 days after publication of a final rule • Methylene chloride. (13) For integral skin PU foam applications, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2017 • Methylene chloride. 6 6 Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2017, may be used after that date. (14) For polyolefin foam applications, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of January 1, 2020 • Methylene chloride. 7 7 Closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foams manufactured on or before January 1, 2020, may be used after that date. (15) For fire suppression total flooding uses, we are proposing to list as unacceptable, as of one year after publication of a final rule • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (C 3 F 8 and C 4 F 10 ). 4. Other Changes (1) For all foam blowing end-uses, we are proposing to prohibit • Use of closed cell foam products and products that contain closed cell foam manufactured with an unacceptable foam blowing agent on or after the later of (1) one year after publication of a final rule or (2) the date of the unacceptability listing. (2) For fire suppression and explosion protection total flooding end-use, we are proposing to clarify the listing for Powdered Aerosol D (Stat-X®), which is currently listed as both “acceptable” and “acceptable subject to use conditions,” by removing the listing as “acceptable subject to use conditions,” as of 30 days after publication of a final rule. B. Does this action apply to me? Potential entities that may be affected 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 Construction 238210 Alarm System (E.G., Fire, Burglar), Electric, Installation Only. Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, And Air Conditioning Contractors. Industry 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing. Industry 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing. Industry 325520 Adhesive Manufacturing. Industry 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing. Industry 326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (Except Polystyrene) Manufacturing. Manufacturing 332919 Nozzles, Firefighting, Manufacturing. Industry 333415 Manufacturers of Refrigerators, Freezers, and Other Refrigerating or Freezing Equipment, Electric or Other (NESOI); Heat Pumps Not Elsewhere Specified or Included; and Parts Thereof. Industry 333415 Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing. Manufacturing 334290 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems Manufacturing. Industry 335222 Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing. Industry 336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing. Industry 336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing. Industry 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing. Industry 3364 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing. Manufacturing 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing. Manufacturing 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing. Industry 336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing. Industry 339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing. Manufacturing 339999 Fire Extinguishers, Portable, Manufacturing. Retail 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers. Retail 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. Retail 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers. Retail 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-Type. Retail 44511 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (Except Convenience) Stores. Retail 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (Except Convenience) Stores. Retail 445120 Convenience Stores. Retail 44521 Meat Markets. Retail 44522 Fish and Seafood Markets. Retail 44523 Fruit and Vegetable Markets. Retail 445291 Baked Goods Stores. Retail 445292 Confectionary and Nut Stores. Retail 445299 All Other Specialty Food Stores. Retail 4453 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores. Retail 446110 Pharmacies and Drug Stores. Retail 44711 Gasoline Stations With Convenience Stores. Retail 452910 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters. Retail 452990 All Other General Merchandise Stores. Services 72111 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels. Services 72112 Casino Hotels. Retail 72241 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages). Retail 722513 Limited-Service Restaurants. Retail 722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets. Retail 722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars. Services 81119 Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance. Services 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance. Services 922160 Fire Protection. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble? Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble of this document: AIHA —American Industrial Hygiene Association AC —Air Conditioning ACGIH —American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ACH —Changes Per Hour ASRAC —Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee AEGL —Acute Emergency Guideline Limits AHRI —Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute AIRAH —Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air conditioning and Heating ANSI —American National Standards Institute APU —Auxiliary Power Unit ASHRAE —American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers BTU —British Thermal Units CAA —Clean Air Act CAP —Climate Action Plan CAS Reg. No. —Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification Number CBI —Confidential Business Information CFC —Chlorofluorocarbon CFR —Code of Federal Regulations CH 4 —Methane CMAQ— Community Multiscale Air Quality CO 2 —Carbon Dioxide CO 2 eq —Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CUAC —Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner CUHP —Commercial Unitary Heat Pump DOE —United States Department of Energy DX —Direct Expansion EEAP —Environmental Effects Assessment Panel EIA —Environmental Investigation Agency EO —Executive Order EPA —United States Environmental Protection Agency EU —European Union FCA —Fiat Chrysler Automobiles FMEA —Failure Mode and Effects Analysis FAA —Federal Aviation Administration FR —Federal Register FTA —Fault Tree Analysis GHG —Greenhouse Gas GtCO 2eq —Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent GWP —Global Warming Potential GVWR —Gross Vehicle Weight Rating HBFC —Hydrobromofluorocarbon HC —Hydrocarbon HCFC —Hydrochlorofluorocarbon HD —Heavy-Duty HD GHG —Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas HF —Hydrogen Fluoride HFC —Hydrofluorocarbon HFO —Hydrofluoroolefin HTOC —Halons Technical Options Committee ICAO — International Civil Aviation Organization ICF —ICF International, Inc. IGSD —Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development IEC —International Electrochemical Commission IPCC —Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPR —Industrial Process Refrigeration kPa —Kilopascal LD —Light-Duty LD GHG —Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas LFL —Lower Flammability Limit LOAEL —Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level LPG —Liquified Petroleum Gas MAC Directive —Directive on Mobile Air Conditioning MDPV —Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle MIR —Maximum Incremental Reactivity MMTCO 2 eq —Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MSDS —Material Safety Data Sheet MVAC —Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning MY —Model Year N 2 O —Nitrous Oxide NAAQS —National Ambient Air Quality Standards NADA —National Automobile Dealers Association NAICS —North American Industrial Classification System NESHAP —National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFPA —National Fire Protection Association NHTSA —National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NIK —Not-In-Kind NIOSH —United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NPRM —Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NRDC —Natural Resources Defense Council NSF —National Sanitation Foundation OEM —Original Equipment Manufacturer ODP —Ozone Depletion Potential ODS —Ozone-depleting Substance OMB —United States Office of Management and Budget OSHA —United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL —Permissible Exposure Limit PFC —Perfluorocarbons PMS —Pantone Matching System ppb —Parts Per Billion PPE —Personal Protective Equipment ppm —Parts Per Million PSM —Process Safety Management PTAC —Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners PTHP —Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps PU —Polyurethane RCRA —Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REL —Recommended Exposure Limit RfC —Reference Concentration RMP —Risk Management Plan RSES —Refrigeration Service Engineers Society RTOC —Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee SARPS —Standards and Recommended Practices SIP —State Implementation Plan SAE ICCC —SAE International's Interior Climate Control Committee SAP —Scientific Assessment Panel SF 6 —Sulfur Hexafluoride SNAP —Significant New Alternatives Policy SRES —Special Report on Emissions Scenarios STEL —Short-term Exposure Limit SUV —Sport Utility Vehicles TEAP —Technical and Economic Assessment Panel TFA —Trifluoroacetic Acid TLV —Threshold Limit Value TWA —Time Weighted Average UL —Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. UMRA —Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UNEP —United Nations Environmental Programme VOC —Volatile Organic Compounds WEEL —Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit II. How does the SNAP program work? A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the SNAP program? CAA section 612 requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ODS. This program is known as the SNAP program. The major provisions of section 612 are: 1. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon (HBFC), and chlorobromomethane) or class II hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment and (2) is currently or potentially available. 2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. 3. Petition Process Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. 4. 90-Day Notification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes. 5. Outreach Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications. 6. Clearinghouse Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances. B. What are EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 612? On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82 subpart G). These sectors include the following: Refrigeration and AC; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS. C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work? Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who produces a substitute to replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major industrial use sectors listed above must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. 40 CFR 82.176(a). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the person likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce, 8 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end users 9 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data. 40 CFR 82.180(a). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after a complete submission has been provided to the Agency. 8 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance. 9 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ozone-depleting substance. The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. 10 40 CFR 82.180(b). Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions can be used for all applications within the relevant sector end-uses and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding them to the list of unacceptable substitutes. 11 10 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision. 11 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a class I or class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States. After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to ensure risks to human health and the environment are not significantly greater than other substitutes. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrow range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application. 12 EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using these substitutes in violation of CAA section 612 and EPA's SNAP regulations. 40 CFR 82.174(c). 12 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time, e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents in military applications or after development of improved servicing infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export. The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 13 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register . EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. 13 In addition to acceptable commercially available alternatives, the SNAP program may consider potentially available alternatives. The SNAP program's definition of “potentially available” is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the Agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172) In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list substitutes that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute. Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs ( e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus, many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices. D. What are the guiding principles of the SNAP program? The seven guiding principles of the SNAP program, elaborated in the preamble to the initial SNAP rule and consistent with section 612, are discussed below. • Evaluate substitutes within a comparative risk framework The SNAP program evaluates the risk of alternative compounds compared to available or potentially available substitutes to the ozone depleting compounds which they are intended to replace. The risk factors that are considered include ozone depletion potential (ODP) as well as flammability, toxicity, occupational health and safety, and contributions to climate change and other environmental factors. • Do not require that substitutes be risk free to be found acceptable Substitutes found to be acceptable must not pose significantly greater risk than other substitutes, but they do not have to be risk free. A key goal of the SNAP program is to promote the use of substitutes that minimize risks to human health and the environment relative to other alternatives. In some cases, this approach may involve designating a substitute acceptable even though the compound may pose a risk of some type, provided its use does not pose significantly greater risk than other alternatives. • Restrict those substitutes that are significantly worse EPA does not intend to restrict a substitute if it has only marginally greater risk. Drawing fine distinctions would be extremely difficult. The Agency also does not want to intercede in the market's choice of substitutes by listing as unacceptable all but one substitute for each end-use, and does not intend to restrict substitutes on the market unless a substitute has been proposed or is being used that is clearly more harmful to human health or the environment than other alternatives. • Evaluate risks by use Central to SNAP's evaluations is the intersection between the characteristics of the substitute itself and its specific end-use application. Section 612 requires that substitutes be evaluated by use. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute. Thus, the risk characterizations must be designed to represent differences in the environmental and human health effects associated with diverse uses. This approach cannot, however, imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk to either the environment or to human health. • Provide the regulated community with information as soon as possible The Agency recognizes the need to provide the regulated community with information on the acceptability of various substitutes as soon as possible. To do so, EPA issues notices or determinations of acceptability and rules identifying substitutes as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to use conditions; or acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, in the Federal Register . In addition, we maintain lists of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives on our Web site, www.epa.gov/ozone/snap . • Do not endorse products manufactured by specific companies The Agency does not issue company-specific product endorsements. In many cases, the Agency may base its analysis on data received on individual products, but the addition of a substitute to the acceptable list based on that analysis does not represent an endorsement of that company's products. • Defer to other environmental regulations when warranted In some cases, EPA and other federal agencies have developed extensive regulations under other sections of the CAA or other statutes that address potential environmental or human health effects that may result from the use of alternatives to class I and class II substances. For example, use of some substitutes may in some cases entail increased use of chemicals that contribute to tropospheric air pollution. The SNAP program takes existing regulations under other programs into account when reviewing substitutes. E. What are EPA's criteria for evaluating substitutes under the SNAP program? EPA applies the same criteria for determining whether a substitute is acceptable or unacceptable. These criteria, which can be found at § 82.180(a)(7), include atmospheric effects and related health and environmental effects, ecosystem risks, consumer risks, flammability, and cost and availability of the substitute. To enable EPA to assess these criteria, we require submitters to include various information including ODP, GWP, toxicity, flammability, and the potential for human exposure. When evaluating potential substitutes, EPA evaluates these criteria in the following groupings: • Atmospheric effects —The SNAP program evaluates the potential contributions to both ozone depletion and climate change. The SNAP program considers the ODP and the 100-year integrated GWP of compounds to assess atmospheric effects. • Exposure assessments —The SNAP program uses exposure assessments to estimate concentration levels of substitutes to which workers, consumers, the general population, and the environment may be exposed over a determined period of time. These assessments are based on personal monitoring data or area sampling data if available. Exposure assessments may be conducted for many types of releases including: (1) Releases in the workplace and in homes; (2) Releases to ambient air and surface water; (3) Releases from the management of solid wastes. • Toxicity data —The SNAP program uses toxicity data to assess the possible health and environmental effects of exposure to substitutes. We use broad health-based criteria such as: (1) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for occupational exposure; (2) Inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for non-carcinogenic effects on the general population; (3) Cancer slope factors for carcinogenic risk to members of the general population. When considering risks in the workplace, if OSHA has not issued a PEL for a compound, EPA then considers Recommended Exposure Limits from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Workplace Environmental Exposure Limits (WEELs) set by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), or threshold limit values (TLVs) set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). If limits for occupational exposure or exposure to the general population are not already established, then EPA derives these values following the Agency's peer reviewed guidelines. Exposure information is combined with toxicity information to explore any basis for concern. Toxicity data are used with existing EPA guidelines to develop health-based limits for interim use in these risk characterizations. • Flammability —The SNAP program examines flammability as a safety concern for workers and consumers. EPA assesses flammability risk using data on: (1) Flash point and flammability limits ( e.g., ASHRAE flammability/combustibility classifications); (2) Data on testing of blends with flammable components; (3) Test data on flammability in consumer applications conducted by independent laboratories; and (4) Information on flammability risk mitigation techniques. • Other environmental impacts —The SNAP program also examines other potential environmental impacts like ecotoxicity and local air quality impacts. A compound that is likely to be discharged to water may be evaluated for impacts on aquatic life. Some substitutes are volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA also notes whenever a potential substitute is considered a hazardous or toxic air pollutant (under CAA sections 112 (b) and 202 (l)) or hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations. EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to section 82.180(a)(7)(vii). This is distinct from consideration of costs associated with the use of other alternatives to which the substitute is being compared. See Honeywell v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2004) at 1,378 (J. Rogers, concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“While the SNAP regulations make the `cost and availability of the substitute' an element of acceptability . . . that concern is limited to whether EPA `has . . . reason to prohibit its use,' not to whether cleaner alternatives for the substance are already `currently or potentially available'. . . . Consideration of transition costs is thus precluded by the SNAP regulations as currently written, irrespective of whether it might be permitted under CAA § 612(c) . . . .”). Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes, the SNAP criteria continue to be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about alternatives. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. F. How are SNAP determinations updated? Three mechanisms exist for modifying the list of SNAP determinations. First, under section 612(d), the Agency must review and either grant or deny petitions to add or delete substances from the SNAP list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes. That provision allows any person to petition the Administrator to add a substance to the list of acceptable or unacceptable substitutes or to remove a substance from either list. The second means is through the notifications which must be submitted to EPA 90 days before introduction of a substitute into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative to a class I or class II substance. These 90-day notifications are required by CAA section 612(e) for producers of substitutes to class I substances for new uses and, in all other cases, by EPA regulations issued under sections 114 and 301 of the Act to implement section 612(c). Finally, since the inception of the SNAP program, we have interpreted the section 612 mandate to find substitutes acceptable or unacceptable to include the authority to act on our own to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists (59 FR 13044, 13047; March 18, 1994). In determining whether to add or remove a substance from the SNAP lists, we consider whether there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. In determining whether to modify a listing of a substitute we undertake the same consideration, but do so in the light of new data that may not have been available at the time of our original listing decision, including information on substitutes that were not included in our comparative review at the time of our initial listing decision and new information on substitutes previously reviewed. G. What does EPA consider in deciding whether to modify the listing status of an alternative? As described in this document and elsewhere, including in the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), CAA section 612 requires EPA to list as unacceptable any substitute substance where it finds that there are other alternatives that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. The initial SNAP rule included submission requirements and presented the environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers in the comparative risk framework it uses to determine whether there are other alternatives that pose significantly lower risk than the substitute under review. EPA makes decisions based on the particular end-use where a substitute is to be used. EPA has, in many cases, found certain substitutes acceptable only for limited end-uses or subject to use restrictions. It has now been over twenty years since the initial SNAP rule was promulgated. When the SNAP program began, the number of substitutes available for consideration was, for many end-uses, somewhat limited. Thus, while the SNAP program's initial comparative assessments of overall risk to human health and the environment were rigorous, often there were few substitutes upon which to apply the comparative assessment. The immediacy of the class I phaseout often meant that EPA listed class II ODS ( i.e., HCFCs) as acceptable, recognizing that they too would be phased out and, at best, could offer an interim solution. Other Title VI provisions such as the section 610 Nonessential Products Ban and the section 605 Use Restriction made clear that a listing under the SNAP program could not convey permanence. Since EPA issued the initial SNAP rule in 1994, the Agency has issued 20 rules and 30 notices that generally expand the menu of options for the various SNAP sectors and end-uses. Thus, comparisons today apply to a broader range of alternatives—both chemical and non-chemical—than at the inception of the SNAP program. Industry experience with these substitutes has also grown during the history of the program. In addition to an expanding menu of substitutes, developments over the past 20 years have improved our understanding of global environmental issues. With regard to that information, our review of substitutes in this proposed rule includes comparative assessments that consider our evolving understanding of a variety of factors. For example, GWPs and climate effects are not new elements in our evaluation framework, but as is the case with all of our review criteria, the amount of information has expanded and the quality has improved. To the extent possible, EPA's ongoing management of the SNAP program considers new information, including new substitutes, and improved understanding of the risk to the environment and human health. EPA previously has taken several actions revising listing determinations from acceptable or acceptable with use conditions to unacceptable. On January 26, 1999, EPA listed the refrigerant blend known by the trade name MT-31 as unacceptable for all refrigeration and AC end-uses for which EPA had previously listed this blend as an acceptable substitute (62 FR 30275; June 3, 1997). EPA based this decision on new information about the toxicity of one of the chemicals in the blend. Another example of EPA revising a listing determination occurred in 2007, when EPA listed HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable for use in the foam sector (72 FR 14432; March 28, 2007). These HCFCs, which are ozone depleting and subject to a global production phaseout, were initially listed as acceptable substitutes since they had a lower ODP than the substances they were replacing and there were no other alternatives that posed lower overall risk at the time of EPA's listing decision. HCFCs offered a path forward for some sectors and end-uses at a time when the number of substitutes was far more limited. In light of the expanded availability of other alternatives with lower overall risk to human health and the environment in specific foam end-uses, and taking into account the 2010 class II ODS phase-down step, EPA changed the listing for these HCFCs in relevant end-uses from acceptable to unacceptable. In that rule, EPA noted that continued use of these HCFCs would contribute to unnecessary depletion of the ozone layer and delay the transition to substitutes that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA established a change of status date that recognized that existing users needed time to adjust their manufacturing processes to safely accommodate the use of other substitutes. In a final rule published on July 20, 2015 (80 FR 42870), various HFCs and HFC-containing blends that were previously listed as acceptable under the SNAP program were listed as unacceptable in various end-uses in the aerosols, foam blowing, and refrigeration and AC sectors where there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment for specific uses. The July 2015 rule also changed the status from acceptable to unacceptable for certain HCFCs being phased out of production under the Montreal Protocol and CAA section 605(a). Per the guiding principles of the SNAP program, the July 2015 rule did not specify that any HFCs or HCFCs are unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. Instead, in all cases, EPA considered the intersection between the specific substitute and the particular end-use and the availability of substitutes for those particular end-uses when making its determinations. H. Where can I get additional information about the SNAP program? For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rule published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. III. What actions and information related to greenhouse gases have bearing on this proposed action? GWP is one of several criteria EPA considers in the overall evaluation of alternatives under the SNAP program. During the past two decades, the general science on climate change and the potential contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as HFCs to climate change have become better understood. On December 7, 2009, at 74 FR 66496, the Administrator issued an endangerment finding determining that, for purposes of CAA section 202(a), the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 )—threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. 14 14 EPA, 2009a. Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. December, 2009. This document is accessible at: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf. Like the ODS they replace, HFCs are potent GHGs. 15 Although they represent a small fraction of the current total volume of GHG emissions, their warming impact is very strong. While GHGs such as CO 2 and CH 4 are unintentional byproducts from industrial activities and mobile source emissions, HFCs are intentionally produced chemicals. 16 The most commonly used HFC is HFC-134a. HFC-134a is 1,430 times more damaging to the climate system than CO 2 . Because of their role in replacing ODS, both in the United States and globally, and because of the increasing use of refrigeration and AC, HFC emissions are projected to increase substantially and at an increasing rate over the next several decades if left unregulated. In the United States, emissions of HFCs are increasing more quickly than those of any other GHGs, and globally they are increasing 10-15 percent annually. 17 At that rate, emissions are projected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. 18 HFCs are rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration of HFC-134a, the most abundant HFC, has increased by about 10 percent per year from 2006 to 2012, and the concentrations of HFC-143a and HFC-125 have risen over 13 percent and 16 percent per year from 2007-2011, respectively. 19 15 IPCC/TEAP, 2005. Special Report: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Cambridge Univ Press, New York. This document is accessible at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf. 16 HFC-23 is an exception; it is produced as a byproduct during the production of HCFC-22 and other chemicals. 17 UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf. 18 Akerman, 2013. Hydrofluorocarbons and Climate Change: Summaries of Recent Scientific and Papers. 2013. 19 Montzka, 2012. HFCs in the Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and Impacts. ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. This document is accessible at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/papers/montzka/2012_pubs/Montzka_ASHRAE_2012.pdf. Annual global emissions of HFCs are projected to rise to about 6.4 to 9.9 gigatons of CO 2 equivalent (GtCO 2 eq) in 2050, 20 which is comparable to the drop in annual GHG emissions from ODS of 8.0 GtCO 2 eq between 1988 and 2010. 21 By 2050, the buildup of HFCs in the atmosphere is projected to increase radiative forcing by up to 0.4 W m − 2 . This increase may be as much as one-fifth to one-quarter of the expected increase in radiative forcing due to the buildup of CO 2 since 2000, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). 22 To appreciate the significance of the effect of projected HFC emissions within the context of all GHGs, HFCs would be equivalent to five to 12 percent of the CO 2 emissions in 2050 based on the IPCC's highest CO 2 emissions scenario and equivalent to 27 to 69 percent of CO 2 emissions based on the IPCC's lowest CO 2 emissions pathway. 23 24 Additional information concerning the peer-reviewed scientific literature and emission scenarios is available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) includes status change proposals for certain HFCs or HFC blends in specific refrigeration and AC end-uses and in rigid polyurethane spray foam. 20 Velders, G. J. M., D. W. Fahey, J. S. Daniel, M. McFarland, S. O. Andersen (2009). “The large contribution of projected HFC emissions to future climate forcing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 10949-10954. 21 UNEP, 2011. HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, A UNEP Synthesis Report. November, 2011. This document is accessible at: www.unep.org/dewa/portals/67/pdf/HFC_report.pdf. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 IPCC, 2013: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables [Prather, M., G. Flato, P. Friedlingstein, C. Jones, J.-F. Lamarque, H. Liao and P. Rasch (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. PFCs are potent GHGs and have very long atmospheric lifetimes. PFCs are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors, then captured for intentional use or manufactured for use in various industrial applications. PFCs have had limited use in the eight sectors regulated under SNAP. This action includes status change proposals for certain PFCs in fire suppression total flooding and streaming uses. IV. What petitions has EPA received requesting a change in listing status for HFCs? A. Summary of Petitions EPA recently received two petitions requesting EPA to modify certain acceptability listings of high-GWP substances in various end-uses. The petitions were both submitted on October 6, 2015. The first was submitted by the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development (IGSD) and the second by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). 25 26 Today's proposal is relevant to certain aspects of these petitions. 25 NRDC/IGSD, 2015. Petition for Change of Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 (Significant New Alternatives Policy). Submitted October 6, 2015. 26 EIA, 2015. Petition requesting EPA to modify the status under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, of certain high-GWP chemicals in various end-uses. Submitted October 6, 2015. The NRDC and IGSD petition requests that EPA change the listing status of certain high-GWP chemicals they believe are used most frequently in the United States in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. The EIA petition requests that EPA list additional high-GWP HFCs as unacceptable or acceptable, subject to use restrictions, in a number of end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. EIA requests that the schedule for changing the status of the substances listed in their petition be based on a three tiered approach: (1) January 1, 2017, or one year following the passage of a final rule for SF 6 , HFC-23, and HFC-23 blends R-508A and R-508B; (2) January 1, 2019, for all chemicals with a GWP greater than 3,000 ( e.g., includes HFC-236fa, HFC-227ea, R-507A, and R-404A) in all remaining stationary refrigeration end-uses; and (3) January 1, 2022, for all remaining substitutes with GWPs higher than 1,000, including HFC-134a, R-410A. In support of their petitions, the petitioners identified other alternatives they claimed are available for use in the specified end-uses. NRDC and IGSD stated that these other alternatives “possess similar thermodynamic characteristics” and “can achieve equal or greater energy efficiency in hardware design” compared to the substances they request the Agency list as unacceptable. The petitions are available in the docket for this rulemaking. While EPA has not found these petitions complete at this time, today's proposal addresses certain aspects of the petitions as described in section I.A and further discussed below. Parts of two other previously submitted SNAP petitions that EPA found to be incomplete are also relevant to this rulemaking. In a petition EIA submitted to EPA on April 26, 2012, EIA stated that, “in light of the comparative nature of the SNAP program's evaluation of substitutes and given that other acceptable substitutes are on the market or soon to be available,” EPA should “remove HFC-134a and HFC-134a blends from the list of acceptable substitutes for any ozone depleting substance in any non-essential uses under EPA's SNAP program.” Additionally, NRDC, EIA, and IGSD filed a petition on April 27, 2012, requesting that EPA remove HFC-134a from the list of acceptable substitutes in household refrigerators and freezers, and stand-alone retail food refrigerators and freezers, among other things. On August 7, 2013, EPA found both petitions to be incomplete. B. How This Action Relates to the Climate Action Plan and Petitions This action is consistent with a provision in the President's CAP announced June 2013: Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives. The CAP further states: “to reduce emissions of HFCs, the United States can and will lead both through international diplomacy as well as domestic actions.” This proposed rule is also consistent with that call for leadership through domestic actions. As regards international leadership, for the past six years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. Global benefits of the amendment proposal are estimated to yield significant reductions in emissions of over 90 GtCO 2 eq through 2050. This action also addresses certain aspects of the various petitions referred to above in section IV.A. While the two recent petitions have not been found complete and earlier petitions have been found incomplete, EPA possesses sufficient information to propose action on some of the end-uses covered by the petitions. EPA's action is responsive to certain aspects of the petitions that relate to the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors; EPA is proposing to change the listing from acceptable to unacceptable for: • HFC-134a in new centrifugal chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and rigid PU spray foam; • R-404A, R-410A, R-410B, and R-507A in new centrifugal chillers, new positive displacement chillers, new household refrigerators and freezers, and new cold storage warehouses; • R-407A in new cold storage warehouses; • R-421A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, and R-434A in new centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers; • HFC-227ea in new cold storage warehouses, new centrifugal chillers, and new positive displacement chillers; • HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, and HFC-227ea in rigid PU spray foam; • HFC-245fa and HFC-227ea in new centrifugal chillers and new positive displacement chillers; • PFCs ( i.e., C 3 F 8 and C 4 F 10 ,) for total flooding applications; and • a number of refrigerant blends with higher GWPs in certain new refrigeration and AC equipment. EPA is also requesting comment and updated information on total flooding uses of SF 6 HFC-23, and HFC-125, and on both total flooding and streaming uses of HFC-227ea. Throughout the process of our discussions with the regulated community, we have sought to convey our continued understanding of the role that certainty plays in enabling the robust development and uptake of alternatives. As noted above, some of the key strengths of the SNAP program, such as its substance and end-use specific consideration, its multi-criteria basis for action, and its petition process, tend to militate against measures some have advocated could provide more certainty, such as setting specific numerical criteria for environmental evaluations ( e.g., all compounds with GWP greater than 150). That said, we believe that the action we are taking today does provide additional certainty in the specific cases addressed. In addition, we remain committed to continuing to actively seek stakeholder views and to share our thinking at the earliest moment practicable on any future actions, as part of our commitment to provide greater certainty to producers and consumers in SNAP-regulated industrial sectors. V. How does EPA regulate substitute refrigerants under CAA section 608? A. What are the statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 608? The statutory requirements concerning venting, release, or disposal of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes are under CAA section 608, and EPA's authority to promulgate the regulatory revisions in this action is based in part on CAA section 608. Section 608 of the Act as amended, titled National Recycling and Emission Reduction Program, requires, among other things, that EPA establish regulations governing the use and disposal of ODS used as refrigerants, such as certain CFCs and HCFCs, during the service, repair, or disposal of appliances and industrial process refrigeration (IPR). Section 608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for any person, in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of an appliance (or IPR), to knowingly vent, or otherwise knowingly release or dispose of, any class I or class II substance used as a refrigerant in that appliance (or IPR) in a manner which permits the ODS to enter the environment. Section 608(c)(1) further exempts from this self-effectuating prohibition de minimis releases associated with good faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of such a substance. EPA, as set forth in its regulations, interprets releases to meet the criteria for exempted de minimis releases if they occur when the recycling and recovery requirements of specified regulations promulgated under sections 608 and 609 are followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2). Section 608(c)(2) extends the prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of any refrigerant substitute for class I or class II substances by any person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances or IPR. This prohibition applies to any substitute unless the Administrator determines that such venting, releasing, or disposing does not pose a threat to the environment. Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA authority to promulgate regulations to interpret, implement, and enforce this prohibition on venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II substances and their refrigerant substitutes, which we refer to as the “venting prohibition” in this action. EPA's authority under section 608(c) includes authority to implement section 608(c)(2) by exempting certain substitutes for class I or class II substances from the venting prohibition when the Administrator determines that such venting, release, or disposal does not pose a threat to the environment. B. What are EPA's regulations concerning venting, releasing, or disposal of refrigerant substitutes? Regulations promulgated under CAA section 608, published on May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established a recycling program for ozone-depleting refrigerants recovered during the servicing and maintenance of refrigeration and AC appliances. In the same 1993 rule, EPA also promulgated regulations implementing the section 608(c) prohibition on knowingly venting, releasing, or disposing of class I or class II controlled substances. These regulations were designed to substantially reduce the use and emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants. EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11946) and a second rule on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) clarifying how the venting prohibition in section 608(c) applies to substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants ( e.g., HFCs and PFCs) during the maintenance, service, repair, or disposal of appliances. These regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. In relevant part, they provide that no person maintaining, servicing, repairing, or disposing of appliances may knowingly vent or otherwise release into the environment any refrigerant or substitute from such appliances, with the exception of the certain specified substitutes in the specified end-uses, as provided in 40 CFR 82.154(a). As explained in an earlier EPA rulemaking concerning refrigerant substitutes, EPA has not promulgated regulations requiring certification of refrigerant recycling/recovery equipment intended for use with substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 13, 2005). The Agency has recently proposed, but not yet finalized, regulations to address certification of such equipment used to recover and/or recycle refrigerants that are not exempt from the venting prohibition (80 FR 69458; November 9, 2015). However, as EPA has noted, the lack of a current regulatory provision should not be considered as an exemption from the venting prohibition for substitutes that are not expressly exempted in § 82.154(a) (80 FR 69466, 69478). EPA has also noted that, in accordance with section 608(c) of the Act, the regulatory prohibition at § 82.154(a) reflects the statutory references to de minimis releases of substitutes as they pertain to good faith attempts to recover and recycle or safely dispose of non-exempted substitutes but does not provide clear guidance about what constitutes such a “good faith attempt” for substitutes. (80 FR 69470). On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29682), EPA exempted from the venting prohibition three HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A, as refrigerant substitutes in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; and propane as a refrigerant substitute in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only). Similarly, on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19453), EPA exempted from the venting prohibition four HC refrigerant substitutes listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the specified end-uses: Isobutane and R-441A, in retail food refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone units only); propane in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; ethane in very low temperature refrigeration equipment and equipment for non-mechanical heat transfer; R-441A, propane, and isobutane in vending machines; and propane and R-441A in self-contained room air conditioners for residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps. Those regulatory exemptions do not apply to blends of HCs with other refrigerants or containing any amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC. In those actions, EPA determined that for the purposes of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, release, or disposal of such HC refrigerant substitutes in the specified end-uses does not pose a threat to the environment, considering both the inherent characteristics of these substances and the limited quantities used in the relevant applications. EPA further concluded that other authorities, controls, or practices that apply to such refrigerant substitutes help to mitigate environmental risk from the release of those HC refrigerant substitutes. C. What did EPA recently propose regarding management of refrigerant substitutes under CAA section 608? In addition to the prohibition on knowingly releasing ozone-depleting and substitute refrigerants during the maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of appliances, the existing regulations established under CAA section 608 require that persons servicing or disposing of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment observe certain service practices that reduce emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerant. The current regulatory provisions only apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants and appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerants. The current requirements include: Requiring that technicians be certified to work on appliances; restricting the sale of refrigerant to certified technicians; specifying the proper evacuation levels before opening up an appliance; requiring the use of certified refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment; requiring the maintenance and repair of appliances that meet certain size and leak rate thresholds; requiring that refrigerants be removed from appliances prior to disposal; requiring that air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be provided with a servicing aperture or process stub to facilitate refrigerant recovery; requiring that refrigerant reclaimers be certified in order to reclaim and sell used refrigerant; and establishing standards for technician certification programs, recovery equipment, and quality of reclaimed refrigerant. On November 9, 2015 (80 FR 69457), EPA proposed to update these existing requirements found in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F that currently apply to ozone-depleting refrigerants and then to generally extend those requirements, as appropriate, to non-ozone-depleting substitute refrigerants, including but not limited to HFCs and PFCs. However, as proposed, the rule requirements would not extend to substitute refrigerants that are exempt from the venting prohibition. This proposed rule would also streamline the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F to improve clarity. For more information on this proposed rule, see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0453. VI. What is EPA proposing in this action? EPA is proposing to list certain newly submitted alternatives as acceptable, subject to use conditions, and other newly submitted alternatives as unacceptable. EPA is also proposing to modify the listings from acceptable to acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, or to unacceptable for certain alternatives in various end-uses in the refrigeration and AC, foam blowing, and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. In each instance where EPA is proposing to list a newly submitted substitute as unacceptable or is changing the status of a substitute from acceptable to unacceptable, EPA has determined that there are other alternatives that pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment. EPA is also proposing that the existing listing decisions for foam blowing agents apply to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam. See section VI.C.3 for the details of this proposal. The emissions that would be avoided from the proposed changes of status in this action are estimated to be approximately 5.5 to 6.6 MMTCO 2 eq in 2025 and approximately 9.8 to 11.3 MMTCO 2 eq in 2030. 27 27 EPA, 2016. Draft Climate Benefits of the SNAP Program Status Change Rule. February, 2016. In each listing decision, EPA is considering the intersection between the specific alternative and the particular end-use, per the guiding principles stated above. This action does not propose that any specific alternative is acceptable or unacceptable across all sectors and end-uses. EPA is also not proposing that, for any specific sector, the only acceptable substitutes are non-fluorinated. EPA recognizes that both fluorinated ( e.g., HFCs, HFOs) and non-fluorinated ( e.g., HCs, CO 2 ) substitutes may pose lower overall risk to human health and the environment, depending on the particular use. Change of Listing Status In determining whether to modify the previous listing decisions for substitutes based on whether other alternatives are available that pose lower risk to human health and the environment, we considered, among other things: Scientific findings, information provided by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) that supports the Montreal Protocol, journal articles, submissions to the SNAP program, the regulations and supporting dockets for other EPA rulemakings, presentations and reports presented at domestic and international conferences, and materials from trade associations and professional organizations. The materials on which we have relied may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Key references are highlighted in section VIII of today's notice. Change of Status Dates Here, as in the July 20, 2015, final rule, the proposed change of status dates are based upon EPA's understanding of the availability of alternatives, considering factors such as commercial availability and supply of alternatives, time required to work through technical challenges with using alternatives, and time required to meet other federal regulatory requirements with redesigned equipment or formulations. Consideration of Costs and Benefits Under the SNAP criteria for review in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), consideration of cost is limited to cost of the substitute under review, and that consideration does not include the cost of transition when a substitute is found unacceptable. EPA requires information on cost and availability of substitutes as part of SNAP submissions in order to judge how widely a substitute might be used, and therefore, what its potential environmental and health effects might be. The SNAP criteria do not identify other cost considerations and thus we have not historically used cost information independent of environmental and health effects to determine the acceptability of substitutes under review—that is, we have never determined a substitute under review to be unacceptable or acceptable on the basis of its cost. When considering a change of status for substitutes already listed as acceptable, the SNAP program has not considered the costs of transition away from HFCs, HFC blends, PFCs, and other alternatives affected by the changes of status as part of determining the status of the substitute or the availability of other alternatives for the same uses. We are not addressing in this rulemaking whether to revise the regulatory criteria to include an expanded role for the consideration of costs in SNAP listing decisions. We have simply applied the existing regulatory criteria in determining whether to change the listing status of the substitutes addressed in this action. Nevertheless, EPA has estimated the costs of the proposed changes of status in this action in order to provide information to the public and to meet various statutory and executive order requirements. We have estimated costs 28 for applicable NAICS codes in a document titled, “Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.” 29 Total annualized compliance costs across affected small businesses are estimated at approximately $11.8-$14.4 million at a 7% discount rate, or $11.5-$14.0 million at a 3% discount rate. The screening analysis finds that the rulemaking can be presumed to have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE) for the following reasons: roughly 89 small businesses could be subject to the rulemaking, although roughly 76% of small businesses subject to this rulemaking would be expected to incur compliance costs that are estimated to be less than one percent of annual sales; and this analysis indicates that up to 21 of the 89 affected small businesses—or roughly 24%—could incur costs in excess of 1% of annual sales, and that up to 12 small businesses could incur costs in excess of three percent of annual sales. 28 Using a 7% discount rate, total annualized compliance costs across the roughly 100 affected businesses are estimated to range from $59.2 million-$71.3 million. Using a 3% discount rate, total annualized compliance costs are estimated to range from $58.8 million-$70.6 million. In terms of the percentage of the estimated total annualized costs by sectors: Refrigeration and air conditioning is about 97-98%, foams is about 2-3% and fire suppression is about 0%. 29 ICF, 2016a. Preliminary Cost Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses in a document titled, “Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression.” 30 These analyses are available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect this proposed rule to have major economic impacts (greater than $100 million per year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, if it is finalized as proposed. In addition, we have analyzed costs and impacts on small businesses in a document titled, “Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. 31 Based upon these analyses, EPA does not expect this proposed rule to have major economic impacts (greater than $100 million per year) or to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, if it is finalized as proposed. As noted, EPA's consideration of cost in listing decisions is limited to evaluating the cost of the substitute under review pursuant to § 82.180(a)(7)(vii). However, for purposes of ensuring that the cost analysis EPA prepared for purposes of providing information to the public and complying with statutory and executive order requirements is as accurate as possible, EPA requests comment on the preliminary cost analysis and the economic impact screening analysis for purposes of updating the analysis. These analyses are available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). 30 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. 31 ICF, 2016b. Economic Impact Screening Analysis for Regulatory Changes to the Listing Status of High-GWP Alternatives used in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning, Foams, and Fire Suppression. The refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression end-uses that would be affected by this proposed rule were not affected by the changes of status promulgated in the July 20, 2015, final rule. For the foams sector, the rigid PU spray foam end-use was not affected by the changes of status in the July 20, 2015, final rule. For some other foam end uses, we changed the status in the July 20, 2015, final rule with respect to use of the blowing agent and are now proposing to change the status with respect to use of closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are manufactured or imported using these foam-blowing agents. Narrowed Use Limits EPA notes that it may be reasonable for several of the end-uses to be broken down further. Consistent with previous practice and as EPA is proposing in certain instances in this proposal, EPA could consider adopting narrowed use limits. We could also consider adopting temporary narrowed use limits for a specific application within an end-use if the Agency determined that substitutes would be available for all but that specific application as of a particular date. In that case, for applications in that end-use not covered by the narrowed use limit, the proposed rule would list the substitute as unacceptable as of that date. For the specific application at issue, the proposed rule could contain both a temporary narrowed use limit with an expiration date and a listing as unacceptable upon the expiration of the narrowed use limit. Any end user within the covered application would need to comply with the requirement to analyze and document that there are no other alternatives that are technically feasible for their specific end-use in order to use the substitute identified in the narrowed use limit. Requests for Comment EPA requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, including proposed decisions to list additional substitutes as acceptable in certain end uses, to list new substitutes as unacceptable in certain end uses and to change the listing status of certain substitutes from acceptable to unacceptable, subject to narrowed use limits or unacceptable, and the dates when the change of status would apply to users of these substitutes. EPA is particularly interested in information concerning whether the supply of substitutes is sufficient to meet the dates proposed in this action or whether there are technical challenges in meeting a proposed change of status date. EPA is also interested in whether EPA should adopt a temporary narrowed use limit for a specific application of an end-use in the final rule. In such a case, the commenter should explain why other alternatives would not be available for the specific application of that end-use and for what period of time. EPA is also requesting comments on the determination that the SNAP listing decisions for foam blowing agents would apply to closed cell foam products and products containing closed cell foam that are manufactured or imported after one year after publication of a final rule. In addition, EPA is requesting comments on its proposed decision regarding the venting prohibition under section 608. More specific requests for comment are included with the discussion of each of the proposed decisions. A. Retail Food Refrigeration and Stationary AC 1. Proposed Listing of Propane as Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Commercial Ice Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment EPA is proposing to list propane (R-290) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a refrigerant in new self-contained commercial ice machines, in new water coolers, and in new very low temperature refrigeration equipment. The proposed use conditions include conditions requiring conformity with industry standards, limits on charge size, and requirements for warnings and markings on equipment. The use conditions are detailed below in section VI.A.1.c, “What are the proposed use conditions?” a. What are the affected end-uses? Commercial ice machines are used in commercial establishments to produce ice for consumer use, such as in hotels, restaurants, and convenience stores. Many commercial ice machines are self-contained units, while some have the condenser separated from the portion of the machine making the ice and have refrigerant lines running between the two. The proposed listing applies only to self-contained commercial ice machines. Water coolers are self-contained units providing chilled water for drinking. They may or may not feature detachable containers of water. Very low temperature refrigeration equipment is intended to maintain temperatures considerably lower than for refrigeration of food—generally, −80 °C (−170 °F) or lower. In some cases, very low temperature refrigeration equipment may use a refrigeration system with two refrigerant loops containing different refrigerants or with a direct expansion (DX) refrigeration loop coupled with an alternative refrigeration technology ( e.g., Stirling cycle). b. How does propane compare to other refrigerants for these end-uses with respect to SNAP criteria? The SNAP program considers a number of environmental criteria when evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate effects, primarily based on GWP; local air quality impacts, particularly potential impacts on smog formation from emissions of VOC; ecosystem effects, particularly from negative impacts on aquatic life. These and other environmental and health risks ( e.g., flammability, exposure, and toxicity) are discussed below. In addition, a technical support document 32 that provides the Federal Register citations concerning data on the SNAP criteria ( e.g., ODP, GWP, VOC, toxicity, flammability) for acceptable alternatives in the relevant end-uses may be found in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0663). 32 EPA, 2016b. Draft Tables of Alternatives for End-Uses Considered in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing Modifications for Certain Substitutes under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. March, 2016. i. Environmental Impacts The ODP is the ratio of the impact on stratospheric ozone of a substance compared to the impact of an identical mass of CFC-11. Thus, the ODP of CFC-11 is defined to be one. Other ODS have ODPs that range from 0.01 to 10.0. Propane has an ODP of zero. 33 The most commonly used substitutes in the commercial ice machine, water cooler, and very low temperature refrigeration end-uses also have an ODP of zero ( e.g., R-404A and R-134a). Some less common alternatives for these end-uses, such as R-401A, R-403B, R-414A and other blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b, 34 have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.047. Thus, propane has an ODP lower than or identical to the ODPs of other alternatives in these end-uses. 35 33 We assume that substitutes containing no chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. 34 Under EPA's phaseout regulations, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may only be used to service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin HCFC-22, HCFC-142b and blends containing HCFC-22 or HCFC-142b may not be used to manufacture new pre-charged appliances or appliance components or to charge new appliances assembled onsite. 35 Propane's ODP is also lower than the ODP of the ozone depleting substances historically used in these end-uses: CFC-12 (ODP = 1.0); HCFC-22 (ODP = 0.055); R-13B1 (ODP = 10) and R-502 (ODP = 0.334). The GWP is a means of quantifying the potential integrated climate forcing of various greenhouse gases relative to a value of one for CO 2 . Propane has a relatively low integrated GWP of three. 36 For comparison, some other commonly used acceptable refrigerants in these end-uses are R-134a and R-404A, with GWPs of about 1,430 and 3,920, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the GWPs for acceptable refrigerants in commercial ice machines ranges from zero for ammonia vapor compression, ammonia absorption, and the not-in-kind Stirling cycle technology to approximately 3,990 for R-507A, while for water coolers, acceptable substitutes have GWPs ranging from 31 for THR-02 to approximately 3,990 for R-507A. 37 In very low temperature refrigeration, a common refrigerant is R-508B, with a GWP of 13,400, while the recently listed refrigerant ethane has a GWP of approximately six and CO 2 has a GWP of one; the GWPs for substitutes in this end-use range from one for CO 2 to 14,800 for HFC-23. Propane's GWP is comparable to or significantly lower than those of other alternatives in these end-uses. 36 Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this document are 100-year integrated time horizon values taken from IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 37 The GWPs of the ozone-depleting substances historically used in these end-uses are: CFC-12 (GWP = 10,900); HCFC-22 (GWP = 1,810); R-13B1/halon 1301 (GWP = 7,140) and R-502 (GWP = 4,660). Table 2—GWP, ODP, and VOC Status of Propane Compared to Other Refrigerants in New Commercial Ice Machines, Water Coolers, and Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment 1 2 3 Refrigerants GWP ODP VOC Proposal Propane 3 0 Yes Acceptable, subject to use conditions. Commercial Ice Machines Ammonia, HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-421A, R-421B, R-424A, R-426A, R-437A, R-448A, R-449A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A 0-3,990 0 No No change. FOR12A, FOR12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC Blend Beta), IKON A, IKON B, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), 417A, R-422A, R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, 428A, R-434A, R-438A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation), THR-02, THR-03 30-3,610 0-0.009 Yes 3 No change. Water Coolers HFC-134a, R-404A, R-407A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-426A, R-437A, R-450A, R-507A, R-513A 0-3,990 0 No No change. FOR12A, FOR-12B, FRIGC FR-12 (HCFC Blend Beta), IKON B, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-438A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), SP34E, THR-02, THR-04 30-3,090 0-0.009 Yes 3 No change. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration Equipment CO2, HFC-23, HFC-245fa, HFE-7000, HFE-7100, HFE-7200, R-170 (ethane), R-404A, R-407C, R-410A, R-410B, R-507A, R-508A, R-508B 1-14,800 0 No No change. ISCEON 89, R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-422C, PFC-1102HC, PFC-662HC, PFC-552HC, and FLC-15 2,530-8,500 0 Yes 3 No change. 1 The table does not include not-in-kind technologies listed as acceptable for the stated end-use. 2 HCFC-22 and several blends containing HCFCs are also listed as acceptable but their use is severely restricted by the phasedown in HCFC production and consumption. 3 One or more constituents of the blend are VOC. The overall GHG effects of these refrigerants in various end-uses depend upon the design of the appliances, since the “indirect” GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption typically exceed the GHG emissions from the refrigerants over the full lifecycle of refrigerant-containing products. 38 These indirect emissions occur from combustion of fossil fuel at power plants in order to supply electric power for operation of the refrigeration equipment. We do not have a practice in the SNAP program of including energy efficiency in the overall risk analysis. We do, however, consider issues such as technical needs for energy efficiency ( e.g., to meet Department of Energy (DOE) conservation standards) in determining whether alternatives are “available.” We recognize that the energy efficiency of any given piece of equipment is in part affected by the choice of refrigerant and the particular thermodynamic and thermophysical properties that refrigerant possesses, as well as other factors. For example, appliances that are optimized for a specific refrigerant will operate more efficiently. While theoretical efficiency of any given Rankine cycle is not dependent on the refrigerant used, the refrigerant, the design of the equipment, and other factors will affect the actual energy efficiency achieved in operation. Although we cannot know what energy efficiency will be achieved in future products using propane, or any other specific acceptable refrigerant, we can point to both actual equipment and testing results that suggest that equipment optimized for propane may improve energy efficiency, and is unlikely to negatively impact it. 39 40 41 Further, testing data, peer-reviewed journal articles and other information provided by the submitters for propane in the proposed end-uses indicate that equipment using propane is likely to require a smaller refrigerant charge, to have a higher coefficient of performance, and to use less energy than equipment currently being manufactured that uses other refrigerants that currently are listed as acceptable under SNAP in these end-uses. Also see section VI.A.1.f below concerning the role of the DOE energy conservation standards in ensuring that overall energy efficiency of equipment will be maintained or improved over time. 38 RTOC, 2015. 2014 Report of the Refrigeration, Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee. This document is accessible at: http://ozone.unep.org/sites/ozone/files/documents/RTOC-Assessment-Report-2014.pdf. 39 Eppendorf, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-170 and R-290 in Very Low Temperature Refrigeration. May, 2015. 40 Manitowoc, 2015. SNAP Information Notice, September, 2013. EPA SNAP Submittal—Revision to Extend R-290 Use to Commercial Ice Machines, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. October, 2015. 41 Blupura, 2015. SNAP Information Notice for R-290 in Water Coolers. October, 2015. In addition to global impacts on the atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential impacts of propane and other HC refrigerants on local air quality. Propane is a VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Potential emissions of VOC from all substitutes for all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC sector are addressed by the venting prohibition under CAA section 608. Under that prohibition, refrigerant substitutes (and thus the VOC they contain) may only be emitted where EPA issues a final determination exempting a refrigerant substitute from the venting prohibition on the basis that venting, releasing or disposing of such substance does not pose a threat to the environment, as proposed elsewhere in this action (see section VI.A.2.a, “What is EPA's proposal regarding whether venting of propane in the end-uses in this action would pose a threat to the environment?” below). EPA estimates that potential emissions of HCs, including propane, when used as refrigerant substitutes in all end-uses in the refrigeration and AC sector, have little impact on local air quality, with the exception of unsaturated HCs such as propylene. 42 42 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. EPA analyzed a number of scenarios to consider the potential impacts on local air quality if HC refrigerants were used widely. 43 The analysis considered both worst-case and more realistic scenarios. The worst-case scenario assumed that the most reactive HC listed as acceptable (isobutane) was used in all refrigeration and AC uses even though isobutane has not been listed acceptable for use in all refrigeration and AC uses, and that all refrigerant used was emitted to the atmosphere. In that extreme scenario, the model predicted that the maximum increase in any single 8-hour average ground-level ozone concentration would be 0.72 ppb in Los Angeles, which is the area with the highest level of ozone pollution in the United States. Given the potential sources of uncertainty in the modeling, the conservativeness of the assumptions, and the finding that the incremental VOC emissions from refrigerant emissions would not cause any area that otherwise would meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to exceed it, 44 we believe that the use of isobutane consistent with the use conditions required in EPA's regulations will not result in significantly greater risk to the environment than other alternatives. Further, propane is less reactive than isobutane and thus we reach a similar conclusion for propane. 43 Ibid. 44 The analysis described here was conducted prior to finalization of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet made ozone attainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In a less conservative analysis potential impacts on ambient ozone levels, EPA looked at a set of end-uses that would be more likely to use HC refrigerants between now and 2030, including end-uses where they previously have been listed as acceptable and where they are proposed to be acceptable under this rule. For example, we assumed use of propane in water coolers and commercial ice machines and in end-uses where it is listed as acceptable, including room air conditioners and household and retail food refrigeration equipment and we assumed the use of other HCs such as isobutane in household and retail food refrigeration equipment and R-441A in room air conditioners and household and retail food refrigeration equipment. For further information on the specific assumptions, see the docket for this rulemaking 45 Based on this still conservative but more probable assessment of refrigerant use, we found that even if all the refrigerant in appliances in end-uses addressed in this proposed rule and in appliances in end-uses for which HCs are listed as acceptable were to be emitted, there would be a worst-case impact of a 0.15 ppb increase in ozone for a single 8-hour average concentration in the Los Angeles area, which is the area with the highest level of ozone pollution in the United States. 46 In the other cities examined in the analysis, Houston and Atlanta, impacts were smaller (no more than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb for a single 8-hour average concentration, respectively). 47 For areas in the analysis that were not violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the impacts did not cause an exceedance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 45 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. 46 This less conservative analysis included some use of R-443A in room AC units because that substitute was under evaluation for that end-use. Elsewhere in this proposal, we propose to find R-443A and propylene unacceptable in residential and light-commercial AC and heat pumps, including room AC units. The propylene in R-443A, representing 12 percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for about 75 percent of the 0.15 ppb increase in ozone in this scenario, while all uses of propane, representing 83 percent of refrigerant emitted, was responsible for about 21 percent of the increase of ozone in this scenario. Thus, only 0.03 ppb of the o.15 ppb observed in Los Angeles would be due to propane and other acceptable HCs. 47 ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on Ground Level Ozone Concentrations. February, 2014. Because of the relatively low air quality impacts of propane if it is released to the atmosphere from the proposed end-uses even in a worst-case scenario, we propose that propane does not have a significantly greater overall im [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-08163. Public record. Not legal advice.