
[Federal Register: June 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 115)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 34017-34040]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn10-10]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-9163-5]
RIN 2060-AG12

 
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice 25 for Significant New 
Alternatives Policy Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Determination of Acceptability.

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

SUMMARY: This Determination of Acceptability expands the list of 
acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's Significant New Alternatives Policy 
program. The substitutes are for use in the following sectors: 
Refrigeration and air-conditioning, foam blowing, aerosols, and 
sterilants. The majority of the acceptability decisions find 
substitutes acceptable as alternatives to the class II ozone depleting 
substances hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22, HCFC-142b and blends 
containing one or both of these substances. EPA is also finding one of 
the alternatives, HFO-

[[Page 34018]]

1234ze, acceptable as a substitute for CFC-113 in the heat transfer end 
use and as a substitute for CFC-11 in the aerosol propellant end use. 
The listing of additional refrigerant alternatives as acceptable will 
provide users in the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector with 
more options for replacing HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, which, pursuant to 
EPA's phaseout regulations, may generally be used only as a refrigerant 
to service equipment manufactured before January 1, 2010.

DATES: Effective Date: June 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All 
electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket 
(No. A-91-42), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Fiffer by telephone at (202) 
343-9464, by facsimile at (202) 343-2338, by e-mail at 
fiffer.melissa@epa.gov, or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mail Code 6205J, Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier 
deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1310 L Street, NW., 
10th floor, Washington, DC 20005.
    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the 
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program or criteria for 
evaluation of substitutes, refer to the original SNAP rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). 
Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA 
publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available from 
EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/ including 
the SNAP portion at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document?
II. How does the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program 
work?
    A. What are the statutory requirements and authority for the 
SNAP program?
    B. What are EPA's regulations implementing Section 612?
    C. How do the regulations for the SNAP program work?
III. How does today's SNAP listing relate to the HCFC phaseout?
    A. Why is EPA issuing a SNAP listing of alternatives to 
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof?
    B. What happened during the most recent milestone in the HCFC 
phaseout?
    C. How does today's SNAP listing affect alternatives to HCFCs 
other than HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof?
    D. In servicing existing refrigeration or air-conditioning 
equipment, may I continue to use refrigerants, previously found 
acceptable by SNAP, that contain HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof?
IV. What are my existing and new options for alternative 
refrigerants?
V. What are my existing and new options for alternative foam blowing 
agents?
VI. What are my existing and new options for alternative aerosol 
propellants?
VII. What are my existing and new options for alternative 
sterilants?

I. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document?

    Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this 
document.

ACGIH American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Limit
AEL Acceptable Exposure Limit
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA Clean Air Act
CAS ID  Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEGL Continuous Exposure Guidance Level
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC Hydrofluorocarbon
IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
NRC National Research Council
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL Permissible Exposure Limit
REL Recommended Exposure Limit
PMN Pre-Manufacture Notice
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
TLV Threshold Limit Value
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WEEL Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit

II. How does the SNAP program work?

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

    Section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to develop a 
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances 
(ODS). EPA refers to this program 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 (e.g., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon 
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and 
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon) 
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 
unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of 
acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of acceptable 
substitutes is found at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html 
and the lists of unacceptable substitutes, substitutes acceptable 
subject to use conditions and substitutes acceptable subject to 
narrowed use limits are found at 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

[[Page 34019]]

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 Section 612?

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rule (59 FR 13044) 
establishing the process for administering the SNAP program and issued 
EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 
in the major industrial use sectors (40 CFR part 82, subpart G). These 
major industrial use sectors are: Refrigeration and air-conditioning; 
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.
    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable only 
those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to 
human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes 
that are currently or potentially available.

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

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a 
substitute to replace a class I or II ODS in one of the eight major 
industrial use sectors must provide notice to the Agency, including 
health and safety information on the substitute, at least 90 days 
before introducing it into interstate commerce.\1\ This requirement 
applies to the person planning to introduce the substitute into 
interstate commerce, typically chemical manufacturers, but may also 
include importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, or end-users 
\2\ when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into 
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
    \2\ As defined at 40 CFR 82.17 ``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 
substitutes: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; 
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable. Use 
conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered ``use 
restrictions'' and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed 
acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use 
limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses 
within the sector. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use 
restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. It 
is a violation of the CAA and EPA's regulations to replace an ODS with 
a substitute listed as unacceptable, except for certain exceptions 
(e.g., test marketing, research and development) specified by the 
regulation.
    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 minimize risks to human health and the 
environment. 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 section 612 of the 
CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations.
    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed 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 requires a user of a narrowed use 
substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are 
available for their specific application by conducting comprehensive 
studies. 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, are using these substitutes 
in an unacceptable manner and are in violation of section 612 of the 
CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations.
    The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal 
Register (FR). EPA first proposes decisions concerning substitutes that 
are deemed acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions and/
or narrowed use limits), or for substitutes deemed unacceptable, to 
allow the public opportunity to comment. After consideration of the 
public comments, EPA publishes a final decision.
    In contrast, EPA publishes decisions that substitutes are 
acceptable with no restrictions in ``notices of acceptability'' without 
first issuing a proposed decision. As described in the rule initially 
implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA does not believe that 
notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are necessary to list 
alternatives 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. 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 ``comments'' or ``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.

[[Page 34020]]

III. How does today's SNAP listing relate to the HCFC phaseout?

A. Why is EPA issuing a SNAP listing of alternatives to HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends thereof?

    To date, EPA has listed many HCFCs as acceptable substitutes for 
class I ODS thus allowing their use as substitutes for CFCs and for 
halons under SNAP. As production and importation of HCFCs becomes more 
limited, availability of these substances for use in current end uses 
may be limited.\3\ In addition, EPA's phaseout regulations contain some 
use restrictions for specific substances. In particular, per the most 
recent milestone in the HCFC phaseout, as of January 1, 2010, virgin 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, and blends containing one or both of these 
compounds, may only be used as refrigerants to service existing 
equipment (minor exceptions apply: Please see details in B, below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A SNAP listing is not equivalent to an allocation, i.e., 
SNAP acceptability does not equate to authorization to produce or 
import ODS. EPA lists companies that have been allocated production 
and consumption allowances of HCFCs in 40 CFR 82.17 and 82.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In previous SNAP notices, EPA has listed a number of acceptable 
substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends containing one or both 
of these chemical compounds (``blends thereof''). In today's SNAP 
listing, EPA is providing a comprehensive list of acceptable 
substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof, generally those 
that have been previously found acceptable as substitutes, as well as 
HFO-1234ze in several additional end uses. This notice only addresses 
the refrigeration and air-conditioning, foam blowing, aerosols, and 
sterilants sectors. Because HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof have 
not traditionally been used to any significant extent in the fire 
suppression and explosion protection, solvent cleaning, tobacco 
expansion, and adhesives, coatings and inks sectors, we are not making 
listing decisions for substitutes in these sectors in this notice.

B. What happened during the most recent milestone in the HCFC phaseout?

    Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 
Layer (Montreal Protocol) and the CAA, HCFCs are considered 
transitional alternatives in the phaseout of CFCs and other class I 
ODS. HCFCs are less potent ozone depleters than are CFCs and other 
class I substances; however, they are still subject to both a global 
and domestic phaseout under the Montreal Protocol and the CAA. HCFCs 
will no longer be produced in or imported into the United States in 
accordance with a tiered phaseout that will culminate in the United 
States in 2030. Under CAA Section 610, the sale and distribution of, or 
offer for sale and distribution of certain uses of HCFCs in foam 
blowing and in aerosols or other pressurized dispensers is prohibited. 
Further, under CAA Section 605(a) and EPA's implementing regulations, 
use and introduction into interstate commerce (including sale of HCFCs) 
is or will be prohibited according to the schedule available in the 
rules cited below and at 40 CFR 82.16, with exceptions for: (1) HCFCs 
that have been used, recovered, and recycled; (2) HCFCs completely used 
up in a reaction to create other chemicals; and (3) HCFCs used in 
refrigeration equipment manufactured before specified dates.
    In a December 10, 1993, rule (58 FR 65018), EPA established a 
`worst-first' approach for the HCFC phaseout; thus the HCFCs with 
higher ODPs were scheduled for phaseout earlier than those with lower 
ODPs. That rule announced an accelerated schedule for the phaseout of 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, such that the production and import of HCFC-22 
and HCFC-142b for use in new equipment would be banned as of January 1, 
2010. Since 2003 (68 FR 2819), producers or importers of HCFC-22 and 
HCFC-142b have been required to hold allowances and importers of used 
HCFCs have been required to obtain prior approval of import on a per 
shipment basis. In a December 15, 2009, rule (74 FR 66412), EPA reduced 
the number of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b allowances to meet and exceed the 
2010 reduction step under the Montreal Protocol. That rule also 
clarified the use ban described in the 1993 rule and generally limited 
virgin HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b to use as refrigerants in the servicing of 
existing equipment. It established an exception for the use of HCFC-22 
as a refrigerant in newly manufactured equipment where the components 
were manufactured prior to January 1, 2010, and are specified in a pre-
2010 building permit or contract for use on a particular project, as 
well as temporary exceptions for the use of HCFC-22 in medical 
equipment and thermostatic expansion valves. For additional information 
on the HCFC phaseout, please see the rules promulgated on December 10, 
1993 (58 FR 65018), January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2819), and December 15, 
2009 (74 FR 66412).

C. How does today's SNAP listing affect alternatives to HCFCs other 
than HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof?

    This notice does not affect previous SNAP listings of acceptable 
alternatives to HCFC-141b, which was phased out of production in 2003, 
nor does it list alternatives to the remainder of HCFCs, such as HCFC-
123, HCFC-124, HCFC-225ca, and HCFC-225cb, which will be phased out on 
a later schedule. EPA anticipates updating the lists of acceptable 
substitutes under SNAP before the production phaseout of other HCFCs.
    We note that EPA recently received a petition concerning the 
listing of HFC-134a in various end uses.\4\ We are still reviewing that 
petition and nothing in this notice should be construed as prejudging 
EPA's response to that petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov as 
item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. In servicing existing refrigeration or air-conditioning equipment, 
may I continue to use refrigerants, previously found acceptable by 
SNAP, that contain HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof?

    HCFC-22, as well as some refrigerant blends containing HCFC-22 and/
or HCFC-142b, have previously been found acceptable under SNAP for 
specified end uses. As noted above, these refrigerant blends, which 
appear in Table 1, below, may continue to be used in servicing existing 
equipment, i.e., equipment manufactured before January 1, 2010, in 
those end uses per the regulations at 40 CFR 82.15(g)(2)(i). (EPA 
defines the term ``manufactured'' for appliances at 40 CFR 82.3.)

   Table 1--Summary of Refrigerants Containing HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and
       Blends Thereof Previously Determined Acceptable Under SNAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Further identification
                                              information for blend
           Refrigerant blend                  (alternative names and
                                                   composition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeze 12..............................  R-134a/142b.
FreeZone...............................  HCFC Blend Delta; RB-276; R-
                                          134a/142b/lubricant.

[[Page 34021]]


GHG-HP.................................  HCFC Blend Lambda; R-22/600a/
                                          142b.
GHG-X5.................................  Autofrost X5; R-22/227ea/600a/
                                          142b.
Greencool (Gu) or China Sun G2018C.....  R-1270/22/152a.
ICOR...................................  R-22/142b.
NARM-502...............................  HCFC Blend Iota; R-23/22/152a.
PFC-330ST, PFC-550HC, PFC-660HC, PFC-    Compositions are Confidential
 1100HC, PFC-1100LT, PGC-100, PGC-150.    Business Information (CBI).
R-401A.................................  SUVA MP 39; R-22/152a/124 (53.0/
                                          13.0/34.0).
R-401B.................................  SUVA MP 66; R-22/152a/124 (61.0/
                                          11.0/28.0).
R-401C.................................  SUVA MP 52; R-22/152a/124 (33.0/
                                          15.0/52.0).
R-402A.................................  SUVA HP80; R-125/290/22 (60.0/
                                          2.0/38.0).
R-402B.................................  SUVA HP81; R-125/290/22 (38.0/
                                          2.0/60.0).
R-403B.................................  ISCEON 69-L; R-290/22/218 (5.0/
                                          56.0/39.0).
R-406A.................................  GHG-12; GHG-X3; McMullen Oil
                                          McCool; Monroe Air Tech
                                          Autofrost-X3; R-22/600a/142b
                                          (55.0/4.0/41.0).
R-408A.................................  HCFC Blend Epsilon; FX-10; R-
                                          125/143a/22 (7.0/46.0/47.0).
R-409A.................................  HCFC Blend Gamma; FX-56; R-22/
                                          124/142b (60.0/25.0/15.0).
R-411A.................................  Greencool (Gu) or China Sun
                                          G2018A; R-1270/22/152a (1.5/
                                          87.5/11.0).
R-411B.................................  Greencool (Gu) or China Sun
                                          G2018B; R-1270/22/152a (3.0/
                                          94.0/3.0).
R-414A.................................  HCFC Blend Xi; GHG-X4; McMullen
                                          Oil Chill-It; McCool Chill-It;
                                          Monroe Air Tech Autofrost-X4;
                                          R-22/124/600a/142b (51.0/28.5/
                                          4.0/16.5).
R-414B.................................  HCFC Blend Omicron; Hot Shot;
                                          Kar Kool; R-22/124/600a/142b
                                          (50.0/39.0/1.5/9.5).
R-420A.................................  Choice R-420A; R-134a/142b
                                          (88.0/12.0).
THR-04.................................  Composition is CBI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b may 
currently continue to be used to service existing refrigeration and 
air-conditioning equipment, EPA reiterates that HCFCs and HCFC blends 
are not long-term substitutes for ODS. EPA is considering whether 
current or potential substitutes are available that pose lower risk 
than these blends.

IV. What are my existing and new options for alternative refrigerants?

    In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, EPA has 
previously found acceptable HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those 
containing HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. To aid end users in the refrigeration 
and air-conditioning sector as they transition from use of these 
refrigerants, this section lists, by end use: (1) Refrigerants that EPA 
previously found acceptable as substitutes for HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, 
including those containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b; and (2) 
refrigerants that EPA is newly finding acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. Where possible, 
refrigerants listed as acceptable in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning section are identified by their designation per American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
(ASHRAE) Standard 34.
    At the end of the decision for each end use, there is narrative 
comparing environmental, flammability, and toxicity information of the 
newly acceptable alternatives with other currently or potentially 
available alternatives. Flammable refrigerants are hazardous waste and 
must be disposed of consistent with regulations under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). More environmental and health 
information is also available in the original SNAP rule of March 18, 
1994, the notice of acceptability in which each substitute was first 
listed, or the sector table, which provides identification information, 
environmental information, flammability information, and toxicity and 
exposure data for each of the acceptable alternatives to HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b, in the refrigeration and 
air-conditioning sector. The sector table is available at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/index.html.

A. Household and Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in household and light commercial air-conditioning and heat 
pumps:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in household and 
light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps:
     Ammonia absorption system (new equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) \5\ (new and retrofit equipment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Throughout the decisions, available trade names for 
refrigerants without ASHRAE designations are provided in 
parentheses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)

[[Page 34022]]

     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-437A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the household and light 
commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section A.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have 100-year 
integrated (100-yr) global warming potentials (GWPs) \6\ relative to 
CO2 ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower 
than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-
22 and/or HCFC-142b. For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the 
GWP of R-407A is about 2110, the GWP of R-407C is about 1770, the GWP 
of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is about 3990. The 
contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions is 
limited given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the 
CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), 
which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These values are based upon mass-weighted averages of the 
component chemicals, using the 100-yr GWPs listed in the 
International Panel on Climate Change's [IPCC] Fourth Assessment 
Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Another 
available source for GWPs is the IPCC's Second Assessment Report, 
Climate Change 1995: Working Group I--The Science of Climate Change, 
accessible from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_
wg_I_full_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under 
the CAA. Some of the newly listed substitutes contain small amounts of 
components that are considered volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 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. None of the substitutes previously found 
acceptable in IV.A.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs 
from refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical 
Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class 
I Ozone-depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that flammability risks posed by ammonia can be 
addressed by existing standards from the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and ASHRAE and other safety precautions common in 
the refrigeration and air-conditioning industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such as Workplace Environmental 
Exposure Limits (WEELs) from the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association (AIHA) or Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) from the American 
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Ammonia has a 
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. EPA 
anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace exposure 
limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential health risks 
by following requirements and recommendations in the Material Safety 
Data Sheets (MSDSs) and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.A.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
household and light commercial air-conditioning and heat pumps end use.

B. Residential Dehumidifiers

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in residential dehumidifiers:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in residential 
dehumidifiers:
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5%by weight) (ICOR 
AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-437A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the residential dehumidifiers 
end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section B.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.B.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs

[[Page 34023]]

from refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.B.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
residential dehumidifiers end use.

C. Reciprocating and Screw Chillers

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in reciprocating and screw chillers:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in reciprocating 
and screw chillers:
     Ammonia absorption chillers or vapor compression with 
secondary loop (new equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFC-227ea (new equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the reciprocating and screw 
chillers end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section C.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.C.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.C.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
reciprocating and screw chillers end use.

D. Centrifugal Chillers

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in centrifugal chillers:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in centrifugal 
chillers:
     Ammonia absorption chillers or vapor compression with 
secondary loop (new equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFC-227ea (new equipment)
     HFC-245fa (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)

[[Page 34024]]

     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-423A (ISCEON 39TC) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
     Water/lithium bromide (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the centrifugal chillers end 
use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section D.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.D.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. HFC-245fa exhibits moderate to low toxicity and has an 8-hour 
WEEL of 300 ppm. Water/lithium bromide absorption exhibits low 
toxicity. Lithium bromide (LiBr) has a 24-hour/day, 90 day Continuous 
Exposure Guidance Level (CEGL) value of 1 mg/m\3\ from the National 
Research Council (NRC). Based on this CEGL, EPA recommends an 8-hour 
preliminary workplace exposure limit of 3 mg/m\3\.\8\ EPA anticipates 
that users will be able to meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, 
TLVs, PELs and CEGL) and will address potential health risks by 
following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry. Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.D.2, 
above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to 
human health and the environment than the other substitutes available 
in the centrifugal chillers end use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's analysis of the NRC CEGL and rationale for preliminary 
workplace exposure limit are available at http://www.regulations.gov 
as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0243 EPA anticipates that lithium 
bromide powder will be used consistent with the personal protective 
equipment recommendations specified by OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/
pls/oshaweb/owastand.display_standard_group?p_toc_level=1&p_
part_number=1910#1910_Subpart_I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Industrial Process Air-Conditioning

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in industrial process air-conditioning:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in industrial 
process air-conditioning:
     Ammonia vapor compression or absorption systems (new 
equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-423A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the industrial process air-
conditioning end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section E.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.

[[Page 34025]]

    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.E.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8-hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.E.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
industrial process air-conditioning end use.

F. Industrial Process Refrigeration

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in industrial process refrigeration:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in industrial 
process refrigeration:
     Ammonia vapor compression or absorption-systems (new 
equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HC Blend A (OZ-12) (new and retrofit equipment)
     HC Blend B (original formulation of HC-12a) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFC-227ea (new equipment)
     HFE-7000 \9\ (new and retrofit equipment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxypropane; HFE-347mcc3; CAS 
ID 375-03-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFE-7100 \10\ and HFE-7200 \11\ as secondary heat transfer 
fluid in not-in-kind systems (new equipment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Methoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; HFE-449s1; CAS ID 
163702-07-6.
    \11\ Ethoxynonafluorobutane, iso and normal; HFE-569sf2; CAS ID 
163702-05-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Nitrogen direct gas expansion (new equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-290 (Propane) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A and R-407B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-423A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-428A (new equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-600 (Butane) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new equipment)
     R-1270 (Propylene) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the industrial process 
refrigeration end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section F.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3610, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
The hydrocarbon substitutes that we are finding acceptable are at the 
low end of this range. Specifically, R-290, R-600, R-1270, and HC 
Blends A and B each have a GWP of about 5 or less. This in contrast 
with the GWPs of the previously listed substitutes, including the GWP 
of R-404A which is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C which is about 1770, 
the GWP of R-410A which is about 2090, the GWP of R-422A which is about 
3140, and the GWP of R-507A which is about 3990. The contribution of 
these refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions is limited given the 
venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's 
implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit 
emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. The hydrocarbons R-
290, R-600, and R-1270, as well as all components of HC Blends A and B, 
are considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national 
ambient air quality standards. Some of the newly listed substitutes 
contain small amounts of components that are considered VOCs under 
these regulations. In comparison, one of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.F.1, above, (R-422A) contains a VOC component. 
Emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are expected to be small 
relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    Ammonia has an ASHRAE class 2 flammability classification or 
moderate flammability risk. EPA believes that the moderate flammability 
risks of ammonia can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and 
ASHRAE and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and 
air-conditioning industry. Each of the newly listed hydrocarbons and 
hydrocarbon blends

[[Page 34026]]

has an ASHRAE class 3 flammability classification. As early as the 1994 
original SNAP rule, EPA noted that hydrocarbons were used in industrial 
process refrigeration, including specialized industrial applications 
such as oil refineries and chemical plants. EPA noted that these users 
were familiar with hydrocarbons, had safety procedures in place, and 
that their facilities were designed to comply with the safety standards 
required for managing flammable chemicals.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low when used according 
to standard practices for industrial processes and for industrial 
process refrigeration. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. 
Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from OSHA. HFE-7200 has an 8-
hour manufacturer acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 200 ppm and HFE-
7000 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 75 ppm. Within the industrial 
process refrigeration end use, such as at chemical or other industrial 
plants, proper exposure controls and ventilation are generally 
available as well as established protocols for handling potentially 
hazardous materials, and therefore overall occupational risk is 
mitigated. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the 
workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs, and manufacturer AELs) 
and will address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.F.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
industrial process refrigeration end use.

G. Bus and Passenger Train Air-Conditioning

    The bus and passenger train air-conditioning end use previously had 
substitutes listed as acceptable for HCFC-22 itself, but not as 
substitutes for blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b; this is 
reflected in category (1), below.
    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 in bus and passenger train air-conditioning:
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in bus and 
passenger train air-conditioning:
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the bus and passenger train 
air-conditioning end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section G.1 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3250, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920 and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends 
are expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from 
all sources.
    None of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. The toxicity risks of 
the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 
and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. For 
each of these substitutes, EPA anticipates that users will be able to 
meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 
address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.G.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
bus and passenger train air-conditioning end use.

H. Ice Skating Rinks

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in ice skating rinks:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22

[[Page 34027]]

and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in ice skating rinks:
     Ammonia vapor compression or absorption systems (new 
equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A and R-407B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-423A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the ice skating rinks end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section H.2 are non-ozone 
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3610, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-422A is 
about 3140. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, one of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.H.1, above, (R-422A) contains a VOC component. 
Emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are expected to be small 
relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry. Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes 
(in IV.H.2, above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater 
overall risk to human health and the environment than the other 
substitutes available in the ice skating rinks end use.

I. Cold Storage Warehouses

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in cold storage warehouses:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A and R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in cold storage 
warehouses:
     Ammonia vapor compression or absorption systems (new 
equipment)
     Desiccant cooling (new equipment)
     Evaporative cooling (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFC-227ea (new equipment)
     Pressure stepdown (new equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-423A (ISCEON 39TC) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     Self-chilling cans containing recycled CO2 (not 
generating CO2 via chemical reaction) (new and retrofit 
equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the cold storage warehouses end 
use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section I.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, the GWP of R-422A is about 
3140, the GWP of R-428A is about 3610, and the GWP of R-507A is about 
3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions

[[Page 34028]]

is limited given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the 
CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), 
which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, two of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.I.1, above, (R-422A and R-428A) contain some VOC 
components. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are 
expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all 
sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. For each of these substitutes, EPA anticipates that users will be 
able to meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and 
will address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry. Therefore, we find the 
newly listed substitutes (in IV.I.2, above) acceptable because they do 
not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the environment 
than the other substitutes available in the cold storage warehouse end 
use.

J. Refrigerated Transport

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in refrigerated transport:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A and R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in refrigerated 
transport:
     Cryogenic system using recaptured liquid CO2 or 
liquid nitrogen (new equipment)
     Direct nitrogen expansion (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/134a/600a (28.1%/70.0%/1.9% by weight) (new and 
retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407B and R-407D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the refrigerated transport end 
use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section J.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407A is 
about 2110, the GWP of R-407C is about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 
2090, the GWP of R-428A is about 3610, and the GWP of R-507A is about 
3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, one of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.J.1, above, (R-428A) contains some VOC 
components. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are 
expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all 
sources.
    None of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. The toxicity risks of 
the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 
and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. For 
each of these substitutes, EPA anticipates that users will be able to 
meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will 
address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry. Therefore, we find the 
newly listed substitutes (in IV.J.2, above) acceptable because they do 
not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the environment 
than the other substitutes available in the refrigerated transport end 
use.

K. Retail Food Refrigeration

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in retail food refrigeration:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)

[[Page 34029]]

     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in retail food 
refrigeration:
     Ammonia vapor compression with a secondary loop (new 
equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFE-7100 and HFE-7200 as secondary heat transfer fluid in 
not-in-kind systems (new equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the retail food refrigeration 
end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section K.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, the GWP of R-422A is about 
3140, the GWP of R-428A is about 3610, and the GWP of R-507A is about 
3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, two of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.K.1, above, (R-422A and R-428A) contain some VOC 
components. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are 
expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all 
sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. HFE-7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 200 ppm. For each of 
these substitutes, EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the 
workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs, and manufacturer AEL) and 
will address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
refrigeration and air-conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.K.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
retail food refrigeration end use.

L. Commercial Ice Machines

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in commercial ice machines:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in commercial 
ice machines:
     Ammonia vapor compression or absorption-systems (new 
equipment)
     HFC-134a (new equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407A and R-407B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the commercial ice machines end 
use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section L.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, the GWP of R-428A is about 
3610, and the GWP of R-507A is about 3990. The contribution of these

[[Page 34030]]

refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions is limited given the venting 
prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing 
regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of 
refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, one of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.L.1, above, (R-428A) contains some VOC 
components. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are 
expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all 
sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.L.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
commercial ice machines end use.

M. Household Refrigerators and Freezers

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in household refrigerators and freezers:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-422A (ISCEON 79) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-428A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in household 
refrigerators and freezers:
     Ammonia absorption systems (new equipment)
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-424A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-427A (retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-44 (2003 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the household refrigerators and 
freezers end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section M.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, the GWP of R-422A is about 
3140, the GWP of R-428A is about 3610, and the GWP of R-507A is about 
3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. In comparison, two of the substitutes previously 
found acceptable in IV.M.1, above, (R-422A and R-428A) contain some VOC 
components. However, emissions of VOCs from refrigerant blends are 
expected to be small relative to the total emissions of VOCs from all 
sources.
    With the exception of ammonia, none of the newly listed substitutes 
for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is 
flammable. EPA believes that the flammability risks posed by ammonia 
can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA and ASHRAE and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and 
blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends 
contain HFC or hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 
500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or 
TLVs from the ACGIH. Ammonia has a PEL of 50 ppm over 8 hours from 
OSHA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.M.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
household refrigerators and freezers end use.

N. Vending Machines

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in vending machines:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)

[[Page 34031]]

     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in vending 
machines:
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
     Stirling cycle (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the vending machines end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section N.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.N.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    None of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. The toxicity risks of 
the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 
and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. EPA 
anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace exposure 
limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential health risks 
by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.N.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
vending machines end use.

O. Water Coolers

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in water coolers:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
     R-507A (new and retrofit equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in water 
coolers:
     HFC-134a (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410B (new equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-421A and R-421B (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-426A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-434A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     RS-24 (2002 formulation) (new and retrofit equipment)
     SP34E (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the water coolers end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section O.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, the GWP of R-410A is about 2090, and the GWP of R-507A is 
about 3990. The contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas 
emissions is limited given the venting prohibition under section 
608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 
CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.O.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    None of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. The toxicity risks of 
the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 
and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. EPA 
anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace exposure 
limits (WEELs, TLVs, and PELs) and will address potential health risks 
by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other 
safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-conditioning 
industry.

[[Page 34032]]

    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.O.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
vending machines end use.

P. Very Low Temperature Refrigeration

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in very low temperature refrigeration:
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in very low 
temperature refrigeration:
     HFE-7100 and HFE-7200 as secondary heat transfer fluid in 
not-in-kind systems (new equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B and R-422C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-744 (Carbon dioxide, CO2) (new equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the very low temperature 
refrigeration end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section P.2 are non-ozone-
depleting, in contrast to HCFC-22 or blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other acceptable substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of 
risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs 
ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or lower than that of other 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. 
For example, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-407C is 
about 1770, and the GWP of R-410A is about 2090. The contribution of 
these refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions is limited given the 
venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's 
implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), which limit 
emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. Some of the newly 
listed substitutes contain small amounts of components that are 
considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing 
the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. None of the substitutes previously found acceptable 
in IV.P.1, above, contain VOCs. However, emissions of VOCs from 
refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the total 
emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    None of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. The toxicity risks of 
the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 
and/or HCFC-142b are low. Most of the blends contain HFC or hydrocarbon 
components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged 
over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. HFE-
7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 200 ppm. R-744 has a PEL of 5000 
ppm. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the workplace 
exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs and AEL) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry.
    Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes (in IV.P.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
vending machines end use.

Q. Non-Mechanical Heat Transfer Systems

    HFO-1234ze,\12\ which was previously listed as a substitute for 
class I and class II ODS in several foam blowing end uses (September 
30, 2009; 74 FR 50129) is today being listed as acceptable as a 
substitute for CFC-113, HCFC-22, and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in the heat transfer end use. You may find the submission 
under Docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0222 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-
0247 at http://www.regulations.gov. We note that EPA is also reviewing 
this substance through a Pre-Manufacture Notice (PMN) under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and users will be subject under TSCA to 
any requirements established through the PMN process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ HFC-1234ze; HFO-1234ze(E); HFC-1234ze(E); trans-1,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene; CAS ID 29118-24-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC blends, including those containing HCFC-22 and/or 
HCFC-142b, in non-mechanical heat transfer systems:
     HFC-4310mee (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-404A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-407C (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-410A (new equipment)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in non-
mechanical heat transfer systems:
     C6-perfluoroketone \13\ (Novec\TM\ 649) (new and retrofit 
equipment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 1,1,1,2,2,4,5,5,5-nonafluoro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-
pentanone or FK-5-1-12mmy2; CAS ID 756-13-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     HFC-245fa (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFE-7000 (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFE-7100 (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFE-7200 (new and retrofit equipment)
     HFO-1234ze (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-125/290/134a/600a (55.0%/1.0%/42.5%/1.5% by weight) 
(ICOR AT-22) (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-417A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-422B, R-422C, and R-422D (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-438A (new and retrofit equipment)
     R-744 (Carbon Dioxide, CO2) (new and retrofit 
equipment)
     Volatile Methyl Siloxanes \14\ (new and retrofit 
equipment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Octamethylcyclo-tetrasiloxanes (e.g., D4, CAS ID 
556-67-2) and decamethylcyclo-pentasiloxanes (e.g., D5, CAS 
ID 541-02-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Water (new and retrofit equipment)
    3. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as a substitute 
for CFC-113 in non-mechanical heat transfer systems:
     HFO-1234ze (new and retrofit equipment)
    Comparison to other refrigerants in the non-mechanical heat 
transfer systems end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for CFC-113, HCFC-22, and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b listed above in section P.2 and 3 
are non-ozone-depleting, in contrast to CFC-113, HCFC-22, or blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. They are comparable to other 
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113, HCFC-22, and blends containing 
HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b in their lack of risk for ozone depletion. 
HFO-1234ze has no

[[Page 34033]]

ODP. HFO-1234ze has a GWP of 6 and an atmospheric lifetime of 
approximately 2 weeks (Javadi et al., 2008). The newly listed 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to about 3390, comparable to or 
lower than that of other substitutes for CFC-113, HCFC-22, and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b. For example, the GWP of HFC-
4310mee is about 1640, the GWP of R-404A is about 3920, the GWP of R-
407C is about 1770, and the GWP of R-410A is about 2090. The 
contribution of these refrigerants to greenhouse gas emissions is 
limited given the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the 
CAA and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), 
which limit emissions of refrigerant substitutes.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. C6-perfluoroketone 
and HFO-1234ze are considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 
51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the national ambient air quality standards. Some of the newly listed 
substitutes contain small amounts of components that are considered 
VOCs under those regulations. In comparison, none of the substitutes 
previously found acceptable in IV.Q.1, above, contain VOCs. EPA has 
received a petition to exempt HFO-1234ze from the definition of VOC for 
purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS on the basis that the 
chemical has a low photochemical reactivity. EPA intends to address the 
request through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Further, emissions of 
VOCs from refrigerant blends are expected to be small relative to the 
total emissions of VOCs from all sources.
    With the exception of some of the volatile methyl siloxanes, none 
of the newly listed substitutes for CFC-113, HCFC-22, and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b is flammable. Some volatile methyl 
siloxanes have flammability risks, and EPA believes that these will be 
addressed by existing standards from OSHA, ASHRAE, guidelines in the 
MSDSs, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and 
air-conditioning industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for CFC-113, 
HCFC-22, and blends containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b are low. The 
potential health effects of HFO-1234ze at lower concentrations include 
drowsiness and dizziness. At sufficiently high concentrations, it may 
cause central nervous system depression or irregular heartbeat. HFO-
1234ze could cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapor in a 
confined space. The substitute may also irritate the lungs, skin or 
eyes or cause frostbite. These potential health effects are common to 
many refrigerants. EPA anticipates that users of non-mechanical heat 
transfer systems will take action consistent with the recommendations 
specified in the manufacturers' MSDSs for HFO-1234ze. EPA recommends a 
workplace AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average for HFO-
1234ze.\15\ EPA recommends a preliminary consumer exposure limit 
(acute) of 10,000 ppm on a 30-minute time-weighted average. Our risk 
screen found that workplace and consumer exposure, respectively, are 
likely to be well below these levels.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Due to additional data on toxicity, EPA is able to use a 
lower uncertainty factor and recommend a higher workplace AEL 
compared to the preliminary AEL analysis (where an AEL of 375 ppm 
was recommended).
    \16\ The risk screen as well as derivations of EPA's recommended 
workplace AEL and preliminary consumer exposure limit (acute) are 
available at http://www.regulations.gov as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0118-0250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the other newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b, most of the blends contain HFC or 
hydrocarbon components with workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 
ppm averaged over 8 hours, such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the 
ACGIH. C6-perfluoroketone has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 150 ppm, 
HFE-7200 has an 8-hour manufacturer AEL of 200 ppm, and HFE-7000 has an 
8-hour manufacturer AEL of 75 ppm. EPA anticipates that users will be 
able to meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs, 
manufacturer AELs and EPA recommendation) and will address potential 
health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs 
and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air-
conditioning industry. Therefore, we find the newly listed substitutes 
(in IV.P.2 and 3, above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater 
overall risk to human health and the environment than the other 
substitutes available in the non-mechanical heat transfer end use.

V. What are my existing and new options for alternative foam blowing 
agents?

    Historically, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, along with HCFC-141b, have 
been used as substitutes for CFC-11 and CFC-12 in foam blowing. HCFC-22 
and HCFC-142b were originally found acceptable as substitutes for CFCs 
in all foam blowing end uses under the SNAP program (March 18, 1994; 59 
FR 13084). In 2007, EPA found a number of foam blowing agents 
containing HCFCs unacceptable for use as substitutes for ODS, because 
alternatives exist with zero or lower ODPs. Specifically, EPA has found 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof unacceptable as substitutes for 
CFCs in the following end uses:
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane appliance;
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and 
sandwich panels;
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams;
    [cir] Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet;
    [cir] Phenolic insulation board and bunstock;
    [cir] Flexible polyurethane; and
    [cir] Polystyrene extruded sheet
    (40 CFR part 82 appendix Q to subpart G)
    EPA has also found HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof 
unacceptable as substitutes for HCFC-141b in the following end uses:
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane appliance;
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and 
sandwich panels; and
    [cir] Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams
    (40 CFR part 82 appendix K to subpart G and 40 CFR part 82 appendix 
Q to subpart G)
    Existing users of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof, as of 
November 4, 2005, were allowed a transition period (which varied in 
time by end use and application) to switch to alternatives, depending 
on the specific use. The last of these transition periods ended January 
1, 2010 (40 CFR part 82 appendix Q to subpart G).Corvette2008
    Finally, EPA has found that HCFC-124 is unacceptable as a 
substitute for HCFC-123, HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b, HCFC-22, or blends 
thereof in all foam blowing end uses (40 CFR Part 82 Appendix K to 
Subpart G).
    In the original SNAP rulemaking EPA addressed the use of blends in 
foam blowing applications. EPA determined that notification was not 
required for ``use of blends or mixtures of substitutes listed as 
acceptable under the SNAP program in open-celled or closed-cell or 
semi-rigid end uses'' but was required in the following end-uses: 
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate rigid laminated boardstock; 
polyurethane spray foam; polystyrene extruded boardstock and billet 
foams; phenolic foams; and polyolefin foams (59 FR 13084, March

[[Page 34034]]

18, 1994). Therefore, blends of acceptable substitutes are also 
acceptable substitutes for the following foam blowing end uses: rigid 
polyurethane, appliance; rigid polyurethane, commercial (including 
commercial foam and sandwich panels, but excluding spray foam); rigid 
polyurethane, slabstock; flexible polyurethane; polystyrene, extruded 
sheet; and integral skin polyurethane.
    To aid end users as they transition from use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b, sections IV.A through K list, by end use: (1) Foam blowing agents 
that EPA previously found acceptable as substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, or all HCFCs; and (2) foam blowing agents that EPA is newly 
finding acceptable as substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends 
thereof. At the end of the decision for each end use, there is 
narrative comparing environmental, flammability, and toxicity 
information of the newly acceptable alternatives with other currently 
or potentially available alternatives. Flammable blowing agents are 
hazardous waste when disposed and must be disposed of consistent with 
regulations under RCRA. More environmental information, flammability 
information, and toxicity and exposure data is also available in the 
original SNAP rule of March 18, 1994, the notice of acceptability in 
which each substitute was first listed, or the sector table for each of 
the acceptable alternatives to HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof, 
in the foam blowing sector. The sector table is available at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/foams/index.html. The sector table also includes 
further identification information (including composition and trade 
names) for each substitute.
    Due to the unique flammability concerns that affect listings in the 
spray foam application, for greater clarity this document separates 
listings for spray foam (section V.D) from listings for commercial 
refrigeration foam and sandwich panels (section V.C). Commercial 
refrigeration foam, spray foam, and sandwich panels together constitute 
the rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam, spray foam, and 
sandwich panels end use. However, because of the heightened risk of 
using a flammable blowing agent when blowing spray foam, in most cases 
we have not listed flammable substitutes as acceptable in spray foam 
(e.g., methyl formate and C3-C6 saturated light hydrocarbons), although 
we have found some acceptable for use in commercial refrigeration foam 
and in sandwich panels (see April 11, 2000; 65 FR 19327, December 18, 
2000; 65 FR 78977, August 21, 2003; 68 FR 50533, and September 30, 
2009; 74 FR 50129). In limited circumstances, where the submitter of a 
specific substitute has supplied EPA with a safety training program for 
customers to address the flammability risks unique to spray foam, we 
have listed such flammable blowing agents as acceptable for spray foam 
applications (see December 6, 1999; 64 FR 68039 and October 1, 2004; 69 
FR 58903).

A. Rigid Polyurethane & Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock

    HFO-1234ze,\17\ which was previously listed as a substitute for 
class I and class II ODS in several foam blowing end uses (September 
30, 2009; 74 FR 50129) is today being listed as a substitute for HCFC-
22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in five other foam blowing end uses. 
You may find the submission under Docket items EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-
0222 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0246 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ HFO-1234ze(E); HFC-1234ze(E); trans-1,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-
1-ene; CAS ID 29118-24-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in rigid 
polyurethane & polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     2-chloropropane
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Methyl formate
     TranscendTM Technologies, as an additive to 
SNAP-approved blowing agents in blends making up to 5% by weight of the 
total foam formulation.
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in rigid polyurethane & 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFO-1234ze
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the rigid polyurethane & 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof listed above in section A.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 
contrast to HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof. They are comparable 
to other acceptable substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof in their lack of risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 794, comparable to or lower 
than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 
HFC-245fa is about 1030.
    None of the newly listed refrigerant substitutes contain any 
components that are defined as HAPs under the CAA. C3-C6 saturated 
hydrocarbons, HFO-1234ze, and some components of Exxsol blowing agents 
are considered VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 
addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national 
ambient air quality standards. EPA has received a petition to exempt 
HFO-1234ze from the definition of VOC for purposes of SIPs to attain 
and maintain the NAAQS on the basis that the chemical has a low 
photochemical reactivity. EPA intends to address the request through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking. Of the substitutes previously found 
acceptable in V.A.1, above, 2-chloropropane and formic acid are VOCs.
    Among the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or 
blends thereof, Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC-365mfc, and C3-C6 saturated 
hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples of other flammable foam blowing 
agents that we previously found acceptable in this end use include 2-
chloropropane, EcomateTM, formic acid, HFC-152a, and methyl 
formate. EPA believes that the flammability risks can be addressed by 
existing standards from OSHA, guidelines from the manufacturer, and 
other safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof are low. The potential health effects of 
HFO-1234ze at lower concentrations include drowsiness and dizziness. 
The substitute may also irritate the lungs, skin or eyes or cause 
frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, it may cause central 
nervous system depression or irregular heart beat. HFO-1234ze could 
cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapor in a confined space. 
These potential health effects are common to many foam blowing agents. 
EPA anticipates that users in foam blowing end uses will take action 
consistent with the recommendations specified in the manufacturers' 
MSDSs for HFO-1234ze. EPA recommends a

[[Page 34035]]

workplace AEL of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average for HFO-
1234ze, which is updated from our preliminary recommendation that 
accompanied the acceptability listing for HFO-1234ze in several other 
foam blowing end uses (74 FR 50129; September 30, 2009).\18\ Our risk 
screen found that workplace exposure is likely to be well below that 
level.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Due to additional data on toxicity, EPA is able to use a 
lower uncertainty factor and recommend a higher workplace AEL 
compared to the preliminary AEL analysis (where an AEL of 375 ppm 
was recommended).
    \19\ The risk screen is available at http://www.regulations.gov 
as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the other newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b, HFC-365mfc, C3-C6 saturated light 
hydrocarbons, and Exxsol blowing agents contain components with 
workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, 
such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from ACGIH. EPA anticipates that 
users will be able to meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, 
PELs and EPA recommendation) and will address potential health risks by 
following requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other 
safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry. Therefore, we 
find the newly listed substitutes (in V.A.2, above) acceptable because 
they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the 
environment than the other substitutes available in the rigid 
polyurethane & polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use.

B. Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in rigid 
polyurethane appliance foam:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     HFO-1234ze
     Methyl formate
     TranscendTM Technologies, as an additive to 
SNAP-approved blowing agents in blends making up to 5% by weight of the 
total foam formulation.
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in rigid polyurethane appliance 
foam:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
     Vacuum panels
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the rigid polyurethane 
appliance foam end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.B.2, with the 
exception of vaccum panels, to also be acceptable in the rigid 
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use. Vacuum 
panels have an ODP and GWP of 0, are not VOCs or HAPs, are non-
flammable, and do not present toxicity concerns. Please see section 
V.A.2 for further information on the environmental and safety impacts 
of the newly listed alternatives compared to other available 
alternatives. For the reasons discussed above in this section and in 
section V.A.2, we find that the newly listed substitutes (in V.B.2, 
above) are acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk 
to human health and the environment than the other substitutes 
available in the rigid polyurethane appliance foam end use.

C. Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration Foam and Sandwich Panels

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in rigid 
polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich panels:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     HFO-1234ze
     Methyl formate
     TranscendTM Technologies, as an additive to 
SNAP-approved blowing agents in blends making up to 5% by weight of the 
total foam formulation.
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in rigid polyurethane commercial 
refrigeration foam and sandwich panels:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFC-365mfc/HFC-245fa blends containing at least 5% HFC-
245fa
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the rigid polyurethane 
commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich panels end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.C.2, with the 
exception of HFC-365mfc/HFC-245fa blends containing at least 5% HFC-
245fa, to also be acceptable in the rigid polyurethane and 
polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use. Blends of HFC-365mfc/
HFC-245fa containing at least 5% HFC-245fa are comparable to other 
acceptable substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof in the 
rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich panels 
end use in their lack of risk for ozone depletion. In addition, these 
blends have average GWPs ranging from 870 to 960, comparable to or 
lower than other substitutes (e.g., the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430 
and the GWP of HFC-245fa is about 1030). HFC-365mfc and HFC-245fa are 
exempt from the definition of VOCs under CAA regulations addressing the 
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. HFC-365mfc is flammable. Examples of other flammable 
foam blowing agents that we previously found acceptable in this end use 
include EcomateTM, formic acid, HFC-152a, and methyl 
formate. EPA believes the flammability risks can be addressed by 
existing standards from OSHA, guidelines from the manufacturer, and 
other safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry. With 
regard to toxicity, HFC-245fa has an 8-hour WEEL of 300 ppm. EPA 
anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and will address 
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in 
the MSDS and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing 
industry. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on the 
environmental and safety impacts of the other newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives.
    For the reasons discussed above in this section and in section 
V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.C.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration foam and sandwich panels 
end use.

[[Page 34036]]

D. Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in rigid 
polyurethane spray foam:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     HFO-1234ze
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in rigid polyurethane spray 
foam:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc/HFC-245fa blends containing at least 5% HFC-
245fa
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the rigid polyurethane 
spray foam end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.D.2 to also be 
acceptable in the rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock end use. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on 
the environmental and safety impacts of the newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above in this 
section and in section V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in 
V.D.2, above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall 
risk to human health and the environment than the other substitutes 
available in the rigid polyurethane spray foam end use.

E. Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in rigid 
polyurethane slabstock and other foams:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Methyl formate
     TranscendTM Technologies, as an additive to 
SNAP-approved blowing agents in blends making up to 5% by weight of the 
total foam formulation.
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in rigid polyurethane slabstock 
and other foams:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFO-1234ze
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the rigid polyurethane 
slabstock and other foams end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.E.2 to also be 
acceptable in the rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock end use. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on 
the environmental and safety impacts of the newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above and in V.A.2, 
we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.E.2, above) acceptable 
because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the 
environment than the other substitutes available in the rigid 
polyurethane, slabstock and other foam end use.

F. Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in polystyrene 
extruded boardstock and billet:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] B
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     HFO-1234ze
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in polystyrene extruded 
boardstock and billet:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the polystyrene extruded 
boardstock and billet end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.F.2 to also be 
acceptable in the rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock end use. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on 
the environmental and safety impacts of the newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above and in 
section V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.F.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
polystyrene, extruded boardstock and billet end use.

G. Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in phenolic 
insulation board and bunstock:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in phenolic insulation board and 
bunstock:
     2-chloropropane
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFO-1234ze
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the phenolic insulation 
board and bunstock end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.G.2, with the 
exception of 2-chloropropane, to also be acceptable in the rigid 
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use. 2-
chloropropane is comparable to other acceptable substitutes for HCFC-
22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in the phenolic insulation board and 
bunstock end use in its lack of risk for ozone depletion. Additionally, 
we estimate it has a GWP of 5 or less, comparable to or lower than that 
of other substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof (e.g., 
the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430, the GWP of HFC-245fa is about 1030, 
and the GWP of carbon dioxide is 1). 2-chloropropane is considered a 
VOC under CAA regulations addressing the development of SIPs to attain 
and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 2-
chloropropane is flammable, like the

[[Page 34037]]

newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof, 
Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC-365mfc, and C3-C6 saturated hydrocarbons. 
Examples of other flammable foam blowing agents that we previously 
found acceptable in this end use include EcomateTM, HFC-
152a, and methyl formate. EPA believes the flammability risks can be 
addressed by existing standards from OSHA, guidelines from the 
manufacturer, and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing 
industry. With regard to toxicity, EPA recommends a workplace exposure 
limit of 350 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average for 2-chloropropane 
(65 FR 37900, June 19, 2000). EPA anticipates users will be able to 
meet the recommended workplace exposure limit and will address 
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in 
the MSDS and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing 
industry. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on the 
environmental and safety impacts of the other newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above and in 
section V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.G.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
phenolic insulation board & bunstock end use.

H. Polystyrene, Extruded Sheet

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in polystyrene, 
extruded sheet:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in polystyrene, extruded sheet:
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the polystyrene, 
extruded sheet end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.H.2 to also be 
acceptable in the rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 
boardstock end use. Please see section V.A.2 for further information on 
the environmental and safety impacts of the newly listed alternatives 
compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above and in 
section V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.H.2, above) 
acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human 
health and the environment than the other substitutes available in the 
polystyrene, extruded sheet end use.

I. Flexible Polyurethane

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in flexible 
polyurethane:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in flexible polyurethane:
     Acetone
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the flexible 
polyurethane end use:
    We are finding all of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof listed above in section V.I.2, with the 
exception of acetone, to also be acceptable in the rigid polyurethane 
and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock end use. Acetone is 
comparable to other acceptable substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and 
blends thereof in its lack of risk for ozone depletion. Acetone has a 
GWP of 0.5, comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof (e.g., the GWP of HFC-134a is 
about 1430, the GWP of HFC-245fa is about 1030, and the GWP of carbon 
dioxide is 1). Acetone is exempt from the definition of VOC under CAA 
regulations addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the national ambient air quality standards. Acetone is flammable, along 
with other substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof, 
including Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC-365mfc, and C3-C6 saturated 
hydrocarbons. Examples of other flammable foam blowing agents that we 
previously found acceptable in this end use include 
EcomateTM and HFC-152a. EPA believes that the flammability 
risks can be addressed by existing standards from OSHA, guidelines from 
the manufacturer, and other safety precautions common in the foam 
blowing industry. With regard to toxicity, acetone has an 8-hour ACGIH 
TLV of 500 ppm. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the TLV 
and will address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDS and other safety precautions common in the 
foam blowing industry. Please see section V.A.2 for further information 
on the environmental and safety impacts of the other newly listed 
alternatives compared to available alternatives. For the reasons above 
and in section V.A.2, we find the newly listed substitutes (in V.I.2, 
above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall risk to 
human health and the environment than the other substitutes available 
in the flexible polyurethane end use.

J. Polyolefin

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in polyolefin:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in polyolefin:
     Blends of HFC-152a and saturated light hydrocarbons (C3-
C6)
     Chemical Blend A \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Composition is claimed as CBI by the submitter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFO-1234ze
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the polyolefin end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof listed above in section V.J.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 
contrast to HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof. They are comparable 
to other acceptable substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof in their lack of risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 790, comparable to or

[[Page 34038]]

lower than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 
HFC-245fa is about 1030.
    HFO-1234ze is currently considered a VOC, and Exxsol blowing agents 
and C3-C6 saturated hydrocarbons contain compounds that are considered 
VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. EPA has received a petition to exempt HFO-1234ze 
from the definition of VOC for purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS on the basis that the chemical has a low photochemical 
reactivity. EPA intends to address the request through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. None of the acceptable substitutes previously 
listed in this end use are VOCs. However, HFO-1234ze, Exxsol blowing 
agents, and C3-C6 saturated hydrocarbons have lower overall 
environmental and health risk compared to other substitutes.
    Among the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or 
blends thereof, Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC-365mfc, and C3-C6 saturated 
hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples of other flammable foam blowing 
agents that we previously found acceptable in this end use include 
Ecomate \TM\ and HFC-152a. EPA believes the flammability risks can be 
addressed by following existing standards from OSHA, guidelines from 
the manufacturer, and other safety precautions common in the foam 
blowing industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof are low. The potential health effects of 
HFO-1234ze at lower concentrations include drowsiness and dizziness. 
The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. 
At sufficiently high concentrations, it may cause central nervous 
system depression or irregular heart beat. HFO-1234ze could cause 
asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapor in a confined space. The 
substitute may also irritate the lungs, skin or eyes or cause 
frostbite. These potential health effects are common to many foam 
blowing agents. EPA anticipates that users in foam blowing end uses 
will take action consistent with the recommendations specified in the 
manufacturers' MSDSs for HFO-1234ze. EPA recommends a workplace AEL of 
1,000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average for HFO-1234ze, which is 
updated from our preliminary recommendation that accompanied the 
acceptability listing for HFO-1234ze in several other foam blowing end 
uses (74 FR 50129; September 30, 2009). Our risk screen found that 
workplace exposure is likely to be well below that level.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The risk screen is available at http://www.regulations.gov 
as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the other newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 and blends 
containing HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-142b, HFC-365mfc, C3-C6 saturated light 
hydrocarbons and Exxsol blowing agents contain components with 
workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, 
such as WEELs from the AIHA or TLVs from the ACGIH. EPA anticipates 
that users will be able to meet the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, 
TLVs, PELs, manufacturer's recommendation, and EPA recommendation) and 
will address potential health risks by following requirements and 
recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the 
foam blowing industry. For the above reasons, we find the newly listed 
substitutes (in V.J.2, above) acceptable because they do not pose a 
greater overall risk to human health and the environment than the other 
substitutes available in the polyolefin end use.

K. Integral Skin Polyurethane

    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, blends thereof, or for all HCFCs in integral skin 
polyurethane:
     Carbon dioxide, CO2
     EcomateTM
     Formacel[supreg] TI
     Formic acid
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-245fa
     Methyl formate
     Water
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof in integral skin polyurethane:
     Acetone
     Electroset technology
     Exxsol blowing agents
     HFC-365mfc
     HFO-1234ze
     Saturated light hydrocarbons C3-C6 (e.g., propane, butane, 
isobutane, pentane, cyclopentane, hexane, cyclohexane)
    Comparison to other foam blowing agents in the integral skin 
polyurethane end use:
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof listed above in section V.K.2 are non-ozone-depleting, in 
contrast to HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or blends thereof. They are comparable 
to other acceptable substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof in their lack of risk for ozone depletion. The newly listed 
substitutes have GWPs ranging from 0 to 794, comparable to or lower 
than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof. For example, the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430 and the GWP of 
HFC-245fa is about 1030.
    HFO-1234ze is currently considered a VOC, and Exxsol blowing agents 
and C3-C6 saturated hydrocarbons contain compounds that are considered 
VOCs under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. EPA has received a petition to exempt HFO-1234ze 
from the definition of VOC for purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS on the basis that the chemical has a low photochemical 
reactivity. EPA intends to address the request through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. An acceptable substitute previously listed in this 
end use that is a VOC is formic acid.
    Among the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, or 
blends thereof, acetone, Exxol Blowing Agents, HFC-365mfc, and C3-C6 
saturated hydrocarbons are flammable. Examples of other flammable foam 
blowing agents that we previously found acceptable in this end use 
include EcomateTM, formic acid, and HFC-152a. EPA believes 
that the flammability risks can be addressed by existing standards from 
the OSHA, guidelines from the manufacturer, and other safety 
precautions common in the foam blowing industry.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, 
HCFC-142b, and blends thereof are low. HFC-365mfc, C3-C6 saturated 
light hydrocarbons and Exxsol blowing agents contain components with 
workplace exposure limits of 500 to 1,000 ppm averaged over 8 hours, 
such as WEELs from the AIHA or threshold limit values (TLVs) from the 
ACGIH. EPA recommends a workplace AEL of 1000 \22\ ppm on an 8-hour 
time-weighted average for HFO-1234ze, which is updated from our 
preliminary recommendation that accompanied the acceptability listing 
for HFO-1234ze in several other foam blowing end uses (74 FR 50129, 
September 30, 2009). EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet 
the workplace exposure limits (WEELs, TLVs, PELs and EPA 
recommendation) and will address

[[Page 34039]]

potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in 
the MSDSs and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing 
industry. For the above reasons, we find the newly listed substitutes 
(in V.K.2, above) acceptable because they do not pose a greater overall 
risk to human health and the environment than the other substitutes 
available in the integral skin polyurethane end use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The derivation of EPA's recommended AEL is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What are my existing and new options for alternative aerosols?

A. Propellants

    We previously found HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b acceptable as substitutes 
for CFC-11 in the aerosol propellant end use. In the aerosol 
propellants end use, the two HCFCs typically have not been blended.
    Under the Nonessential Products Ban in Section 610 of the CAA, and 
EPA's regulations implementing that provision at 40 CFR subpart C, the 
sale and distribution or offer for sale and distribution of HCFCs in 
pressurized containers is banned. However, EPA regulations at 40 CFR 
82.70 provide exceptions for a limited number of specific uses. For 
aerosol propellants, these include:
     Medical devices listed in 21 CFR 2.125(e);
     Mold release agents that contain HCFC-22 as a propellant 
where evidence of good faith efforts to secure alternatives indicates 
that, other than a class I substance, there are no suitable 
alternatives;
     Spinnerette lubricants/cleaning sprays used in the 
production of synthetic fibers, which contain class II substances for 
solvent purposes and/or contain class II substances for propellant 
purposes;
     Document preservation sprays which contain HCFC-22 as a 
propellant, but which contain no other class II substance and which are 
used solely on thick books, books with coated, dense or paper and 
tightly bound documents;
     Aerosol or pressurized dispenser cleaning fluid for 
electronic and photographic equipment which contains a class II 
substance that is sold or distributed to a commercial purchaser.
    To aid end users in the aerosol propellants end use as they 
transition from use of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof, this 
section lists: 1) Propellants that EPA previously found acceptable as 
substitutes for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b; and 2) a propellant that EPA is 
newly finding acceptable as a substitute for CFC-11, HCFC-22, HCFC-
142b, and blends thereof. At the end of the decision for the end use, 
there is narrative comparing environmental, flammability, and toxicity 
information of the newly acceptable alternative with other currently or 
potentially available alternatives. More environmental and health 
information is also available in the original SNAP rule of March 18, 
1994, the notice of acceptability in which each substitute was first 
listed, or the sector table for each of the acceptable alternatives to 
HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof, in the aerosol propellants end 
use. The sector table is available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
aerosol/index.html. The sector table also includes further 
identification information (including composition and trade names) for 
each substitute.
    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in aerosol propellants:
     Alternative processes (pumps, mechanical pressure 
dispensers, non-spray dispensers)
     Compressed gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, air, nitrogen, and 
nitrous oxide)
     Dimethyl ether
     HFC-125
     HFC-134a
     HFC-152a
     HFC-227ea
     Saturated light hydrocarbons, C3-C6 (e.g., propane, 
isobutane, n-butane)
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as a substitute 
for CFC-11, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends thereof as an aerosol 
propellant:
     HFO-1234ze \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ HFO-1234ze(E); HFC-1234ze(E); trans-1,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-
1-ene; CAS ID 29118-24-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HFO-1234ze is non-ozone-depleting in contrast to the ozone 
depleting substances which it replaces. In its lack of risk for ozone 
depletion, HFO-1234ze is comparable to other substitutes for HCFC-22 
and HCFC-142b such as HFC-134a, HFC-152a, and compressed 
CO2. HFO-1234ze's 100-year GWP is 6, comparable to or lower 
than that of other substitutes for CFC-11, HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b. For 
example, the GWP of HFC-134a is about 1430, the GWP of HFC-152a is 
about 124, and the GWP of compressed CO2 is 1.
    Neither HFO-1234ze nor any of the previously acceptable substitutes 
in the propellant end use are HAPs. HFO-1234ze is currently considered 
a VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the 
development of SIPs to attain and maintain the national ambient air 
quality standards. Other acceptable substitutes in the propellant end 
use that are VOCs are dimethyl ether and the saturated light 
hydrocarbons (C3-C6). EPA has received a petition to exempt HFO-1234ze 
from the definition of VOC for purposes of SIPs to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS on the basis that the chemical has a low photochemical 
reactivity. EPA intends to address the request through notice-and-
comment rulemaking.
    HFO-1234ze is not flammable. The toxicity risks of HFO-1234ze are 
low. The potential health effects of HFO-1234ze at lower concentrations 
include drowsiness and dizziness. At sufficiently high concentrations, 
it may cause central nervous system depression or irregular heart beat. 
HFO-1234ze could cause asphyxiation, if air is displaced by vapor in a 
confined space. The substitute may also irritate the lungs, skin or 
eyes or cause frostbite. These potential health effects are common to 
many propellants. EPA anticipates that users in the propellant end use 
will take action consistent with the recommendations specified in the 
manufacturers' MSDSs for HFO-1234ze. EPA recommends a workplace 
exposure limit of 1,000 ppm on an 8-hour time-weighted average for HFO-
1234ze. EPA recommends a preliminary consumer exposure limit 
(intermittent) of 420 ppm. Our risk screen found that workplace and 
consumer exposure, respectively, are likely to be well below these 
levels.\24\ EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the 
recommended workplace and consumer exposure limits and will address 
potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in 
the MSDSs and labels and other safety precautions common in the aerosol 
industry. For the above reasons, we find HFO-1234ze acceptable because 
it does not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the 
environment than the other substitutes acceptable in the aerosol 
propellants end use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The derivation of EPA's recommended AEL, preliminary 
consumer exposure limit (intermittent), and risk screen are 
available at http://www.regulations.gov as item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0118-0250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. What are my existing and new options for alternative sterilants?

A. Sterilants

    Sterilants are chemicals, blends, or devices used to sterilize 
medical equipment. Many sterilants contain ethylene oxide (EtO) as a 
component. In this sector, EPA has previously found acceptable ethylene 
oxide blends containing a blend of HCFC-22 and/or HCFC-124. HCFC-142b 
has not been used in this sector.
    To aid end users in the sterilant end use as they transition from 
use of

[[Page 34040]]

ethylene oxide blends containing HCFC-22, this section lists: (1) 
Sterilants that EPA previously found acceptable as substitutes for 
ethylene oxide blends containing HCFC-22; and (2) sterilants that EPA 
is newly finding acceptable as substitutes for ethylene oxide blends 
containing HCFC-22.
    At the end of the decision for the end use, there is narrative 
comparing environmental, flammability, and toxicity information of the 
newly acceptable alternative with other currently or potentially 
available alternatives. Flammable and highly reactive sterilants are 
hazardous waste when disposed. Sterilants must be registered by EPA 
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
prior to use. Also, requirements of the Food and Drug Administration 
for medical devices apply to equipment using sterilants.
    More environmental and health information is also available in the 
original SNAP rule of March 18, 1994, the notice of acceptability in 
which each substitute was first listed, or the sector table for each of 
the acceptable alternatives to ethylene oxide blends containing HCFC-
22, in the sterilant end use. The sector table is available at http://
www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/sterilants/index.html. The sector table also 
includes further identification information (including composition and 
trade names) for each substitute.
    1. EPA previously found the following acceptable as substitutes for 
ethylene oxide blends containing HCFC-22 as sterilants:
     IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 6 (blends of 
CF3I/CO2/EtO)
     Mini-Max[supreg] Cleaner
    2. EPA is newly finding the following acceptable as substitutes for 
ethylene oxide blends containing HCFC-22 as sterilants:
     CO2/EtO
     Hydrogen peroxide gas plasma systems
     Peroxyacetic acid/hydrogen peroxide gas plasma systems
     Pure EtO
     Steam
    The newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and blends 
thereof listed above in section VII.A.2. are non-ozone-depleting, in 
contrast to HCFC-22 blends. They are comparable to other acceptable 
substitutes for HCFC-22 blends in their lack of risk for ozone 
depletion. The newly listed substitutes have GWPs of one or less, 
comparable to or lower than that of other substitutes for HCFC-22 
blends. For example, the GWP of the IoGas blends is less than one.
    Peroxyacetic acid and ethylene oxide are considered VOCs under CAA 
regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs 
to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. 
Ethylene oxide is a hazardous air pollutant under EPA regulations. 
EPA's National Emission Standards for Hospital Ethylene Oxide 
Sterilizers apply to this substance and blends that contain it (see 
subpart WWWWW of 40 CFR part 63). EPA has previously found other blends 
containing ethylene oxide to be acceptable as sterilants. Further, 
blends that do not contain ethylene oxide are often still reactive.
    Among the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 blends, pure 
ethylene oxide and peroxyacetic acid, a component in a peroxyacetic 
acid/hydrogen peroxide gas plasma system, are flammable. Hydrogen 
peroxide is not flammable per se, but is highly reactive and must be 
handled cautiously at the concentrations required for use in 
sterilization equipment. These sterilants should be used in equipment 
designed to reduce the risks of flammable or highly reactive chemicals. 
EPA believes that the flammability and reactivity risks can be 
addressed by existing standards from OSHA, NIOSH, and EPA, and/or by 
guidelines from the manufacturer, and other safety precautions common 
during sterilization.
    The toxicity risks of the newly listed substitutes for HCFC-22 
blends are comparable to the risks of the IoGas blends that EPA 
previously found acceptable as substitutes for blends of ethylene oxide 
and HCFCs. Ethylene oxide has an OSHA PEL of 1 ppm on an 8-hour time-
weighted average and a NIOSH IDLH of 800 ppm (30-minute). This compound 
may be carcinogenic. Hydrogen peroxide, used in gas plasma systems, has 
an OSHA PEL of 1 ppm (8-hr TWA) and a NIOSH IDLH value of 75 ppm (30 
min). Peroxyacetic acid, used together with hydrogen peroxide in gas 
plasma systems, has an AEGL-1 of 0.17 ppm from 10 min to 8 hours to 
avoid irritation and an AEGL-2 of 0.5 ppm from 10 min to 8 hours to 
avoid ``irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health 
effects * * *.'' (Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne 
Chemicals, Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels, National 
Research Council of the National Academies, 2009). EPA anticipates that 
users will be able to meet the workplace exposure limits (PELs, IDLHs, 
and AEGLs) and will address potential health risks by following 
requirements and recommendations in the MSDSs and other safety 
precautions common when working with sterilants. For the above reasons, 
we find the newly listed substitutes (in VII.A.2, above) acceptable 
because they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the 
environment than the other substitutes available in the end use.
    You can find a complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the 
appropriate Federal Register citations from the SNAP section of EPA's 
Ozone Depletion Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html. 
This information is also available from the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES 
section above for contact information).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2010.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-14510 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

