29682 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

purpose of this notice is to relieve a 

restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action defers federal sanctions 

and imposes no additional 

requirements. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action. 

The administrator certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

This rule does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

federal government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply to this rule because 

it imposes no standards. 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to Congress and the 

Comptroller General. However, section 

808 provides that any rule for which the 

issuing agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the agency promulgating 

the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefore, 

and established an effective date of May 

23, 2014. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 22, 2014. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this rule for the purpose of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11509 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0580; FRL–9911–42– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AM09 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Revision of the Venting Prohibition for 

Specific Refrigerant Substitutes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, the Agency) is amending 

the regulations promulgated as part of 

the National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program under section 608 of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA is amending 

those regulations to exempt certain 

refrigerant substitutes, listed as 

acceptable subject to use conditions in 

regulations promulgated as part of 

EPA’s Significant New Alternative 

Policy program under section 612 of the 

Act, from the prohibition under section 

608 on venting, release or disposal on 

the basis of current evidence that their 

venting, release or disposal does not 

pose a threat to the environment. 

Specifically, EPA is exempting from the 

venting prohibition isobutane (R–600a) 

and R–441A, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers, 

and propane (R–290), as a refrigerant 

substitute in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0580. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

from the EPA Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. This 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, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 29683 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally Hamlin, Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Air and Radiation, 

MC 6205J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9711; fax number: 

(202) 343–2338; email address: 

hamlin.sally@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

action extends the exemption from the 

venting prohibition at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1) to certain refrigerant 

substitutes in certain end-uses for which 

EPA has found the refrigerant 

substitutes acceptable subject to use 

conditions under CAA section 612 and 

the implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

Part 82, Subpart G. Specifically, EPA is 

exempting from the venting prohibition 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A as 

refrigerant substitutes in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers, and propane 

(R–290), as a refrigerant substitute in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only). 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What abbreviations and acronyms are 

used in this action? 

II. How does the National Recycling and 

Emission Reduction Program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

under section 608 of the Clean Air Act? 

B. What are the regulations against venting, 

releasing or disposing of refrigerant 

substitutes? 

III. What factors did EPA consider in 

determining whether venting, release or 

disposal poses a threat to the 

environment? 

A. Inherent Characteristics of These 

Substances 

B. Limits and Controls Under Other 

Authorities, Regulations or Practices 

IV. What is EPA’s determination whether 

venting, release or disposal poses a 

threat to the environment? 

V. What revision to the venting prohibition 

is EPA finalizing today? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

VII. References 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Potentially regulated entities may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following. 

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

Category NAICS code Description of regulated entities 

Services ................................................... 811412 Appliance repair and maintenance. 

Industry .................................................... 333415 Manufacturers of refrigerators, freezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; heat pumps not elsewhere specified or included 

(NESOI); and parts thereof. 

Industry .................................................... 445110 Supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience) stores. 

Industry .................................................... 445120 Convenience stores. 

Industry .................................................... 562920, 423930 Facilities separating and sorting recyclable materials from non-hazardous waste 

streams (e.g., scrap yards) and merchant wholesale distribution of industrial 

scrap and other recyclable materials. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

regarding entities likely to be regulated 

by this action. Other types of entities 

not listed in the table could also be 

affected. To determine whether your 

company is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria contained in 

section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 

the Act) as amended, and relevant 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 

82, Subpart F. If you have any questions 

about whether this action applies to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section, FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What abbreviations and acronyms are 

used in this action? 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS—Chemical Abstracts Service 

CBI—confidential business information 

CFC—chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EO—Executive Order 

FR—Federal Register 

GWP—Global warming potential 

HC—hydrocarbon 

HCFC—hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC—hydrofluorocarbon 

IPR—industrial process refrigeration 

LFL—lower flammability limit 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

ODP—ozone depletion potential 

ODS—ozone-depleting substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management 

and Budget 

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VOC—volatile organic compound 

II. How does the National Recycling 

and Emission Reduction Program 

work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

under section 608 of the Clean Air Act? 

Section 608 of the Act as amended, 

titled National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program, requires EPA to 

establish regulations governing the use 

and disposal of ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS) used as refrigerants, 

such as certain chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFCs), during the service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration (IPR), including 

air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment. Section 608 also prohibits 

any person in the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, from knowingly venting or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
29684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In this action, EPA sometimes uses the 

shorthand ‘‘venting prohibition’’ to refer to the 

section 608(c) prohibition of knowingly venting, 

releasing, or disposing of class I or class II 

substances, and their substitutes. 

2A list of ozone-depleting substances is available 

in Appendices A and B to Subpart A of Part 82. 

3 ‘‘Substitute,’’ as defined at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart F, is ‘‘any chemical or product, whether 

existing or new, that is used by any person as an 

EPA approved replacement for a class I or II ozonedepleting substance in a given refrigeration or airconditioning end-use.’’ 40 CFR 82.152. 

otherwise knowingly releasing or 

disposing of such ODS used as 

refrigerants therein in a manner which 

permits such substances to enter the 

environment. This prohibition similarly 

applies to the venting, release, or 

disposal of substitutes for such ODS 

used as refrigerants, unless the 

Administrator determines that venting, 

releasing, or disposing of such a 

substitute does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

Section 608 is divided into three 

subsections. Briefly, section 608(a) 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

to reduce the use and the emissions of 

class I substances (e.g., CFCs and 

halons) and class II substances (HCFCs) 

to the lowest achievable level and to 

maximize the recapture and recycling of 

such substances. Section 608(b) requires 

that the regulations promulgated 

pursuant to subsection (a) contain 

standards and requirements for the safe 

disposal of class I and class II 

substances. Finally, section 608(c) 

contains self-effectuating provisions that 

prohibit any person from knowingly 

venting, releasing or disposing of any 

class I or class II substances, and their 

substitutes, used as refrigerants in 

appliances or IPR in a manner which 

permits such substances to enter the 

environment during maintenance, 

repairing, servicing, or disposal of 

appliances or IPR. 

EPA’s authority for the requirements 

in this action is based on section 608. 

As noted above, section 608(a) requires 

EPA to promulgate regulations regarding 

use and disposal of class I and II 

substances to ‘‘reduce the use and 

emission of such substances to the 

lowest achievable level’’ and ‘‘maximize 

the recapture and recycling of such 

substances.’’ Section 608(a) further 

provides that ‘‘[s]uch regulations may 

include requirements to use alternative 

substances (including substances which 

are not class I or class II substances) 

. . . or to promote the use of safe 

alternatives pursuant to section [612] or 

any combination of the foregoing.’’ 

Section 608(c)(1) provides that, effective 

July 1, 1992, it is ‘‘unlawful for any 

person, in the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or 

otherwise knowingly release or dispose 

of any class I or class II substance used 

as a refrigerant in such appliance (or 

industrial process refrigeration) in a 

manner which permits such substance 

to enter the environment.’’ The statute 

exempts from this self-effectuating 

prohibition ‘‘[d]e minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’ 

of such a substance. To implement and 

enforce the venting prohibition,1 EPA, 

as codified in its regulations, interprets 

releases to meet the criteria for 

exempted ‘‘de minimis’’ releases if they 

occur when the recycling and recovery 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated under sections 608 and 

609 are followed. 40 CFR 82.154(a)(2). 

Effective November 15, 1995, section 

608(c)(2) of the Act extends the 

prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to 

knowingly venting or otherwise 

knowingly releasing or disposing of any 

refrigerant substitute for class I or class 

II substances by any person 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances or IPR. This 

prohibition applies to any such 

substitute substance unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

venting, releasing, or disposing ‘‘does 

not pose a threat to the environment.’’ 

Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA 

authority to promulgate regulations to 

interpret, implement, and enforce this 

venting prohibition, including authority 

to implement section 608(c)(2) by 

exempting certain substitutes for class I 

or class II substances from the 

prohibition when the Administrator 

determines that such venting, release, or 

disposal does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

B. What are the regulations against 

venting, releasing or disposing of 

refrigerant substitutes? 

Final regulations promulgated under 

section 608 of the Act, published on 

May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established 

a recycling program for ozone-depleting 

refrigerants recovered during the 

servicing and maintenance of airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances. In the same 1993 final rule, 

EPA also promulgated regulations 

implementing the section 608(c) 

prohibition on knowingly venting, 

releasing or disposing of class I or class 

II controlled substances.2 These 

regulations are intended to substantially 

reduce the use and emissions of ozonedepleting refrigerants. 

On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to 

implement and clarify the requirements 

of section 608(c)(2) of the Act by 

clarifying how the venting prohibition 

extends to substitutes for CFC and 

HCFC refrigerants (63 FR 32044). EPA 

issued a final rule March 12, 2004 (69 

FR 11946) and a second rule on April 

13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) clarifying how 

the venting prohibition in section 608(c) 

applies to refrigerant substitutes (e.g., 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in part or 

whole) during the maintenance, service, 

repair, or disposal of appliances. These 

regulations implementing section 608’s 

recycling and emission reduction 

program were codified at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. Before the amendments 

finalized in the present action, the 

regulation at 40 CFR 82.154(a) stated in 

part that: 

‘‘[e]ffective June 13, 2005, no person 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances may knowingly vent 

or otherwise release into the environment 

any refrigerant or substitute 3 from such 

appliances, with the exception of the 

following substitutes in the following enduses: 

i. Ammonia in commercial or industrial 

process refrigeration or in absorption units; 

ii. Hydrocarbons in industrial process 

refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons); 

iii. Chlorine in industrial process 

refrigeration (processing of chlorine and 

chlorine compounds); 

iv. Carbon dioxide in any application; 

v. Nitrogen in any application; or 

vi. Water in any application. 

(2) The knowing release of a refrigerant or 

non-exempt substitute subsequent to its 

recovery from an appliance shall be 

considered a violation of this prohibition. De 

minimis releases associated with good faith 

attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants or 

non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this 

prohibition. . . . ’’ 

As explained in EPA’s earlier 

rulemaking concerning refrigerant 

substitutes, EPA has not promulgated 

regulations requiring certification of 

refrigerant recycling/recovery 

equipment intended for use with 

substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 

13, 2005). However, as EPA has noted, 

the lack of a current regulatory 

provision should not be considered as 

an exemption from the venting 

prohibition for substitutes that are not 

expressly exempted in § 82.154(a). Id. 

EPA has also noted that, in accordance 

with section 608(c) of the Act, the 

regulatory prohibition at § 82.154(a) 

reflects the statutory references to de 

minimis releases of substitutes as they 

pertain to good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of non-exempted substitutes. Id. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 29685 

4Use conditions for hydrocarbons in certain 

refrigeration end-uses are found at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G, appendix R. 

III. What factors did EPA consider in 

determining whether venting, release or 

disposal poses a threat to the 

environment? 

Section 608(c)(2) extends the venting 

prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to 

substitutes for class I or class II 

substances, unless the Administrator 

determines that such venting, releasing, 

or disposing does not pose a threat to 

the environment. 

For purposes of section 608(c)(2) of 

the CAA, EPA considers two factors in 

determining whether or not venting, 

release, or disposal of a refrigerant 

substitute during the maintenance, 

service, repair or disposing of 

appliances poses a threat to the 

environment. See 69 FR 11948 (March 

12, 2004). First, EPA determines 

whether venting, release, or disposal of 

the refrigerant substitute poses a threat 

to the environment due to inherent 

characteristics of the refrigerant, such as 

global warming potential. Second, EPA 

determines whether and to what extent 

such venting, release, or disposal 

actually takes place during the 

maintenance, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances, and to what 

extent such venting, release, or disposal 

is controlled by other authorities, 

regulations, or practices. To the extent 

that such releases are adequately 

controlled by other authorities, EPA 

defers to those authorities. 

In addressing the two factors 

mentioned in the paragraph above, the 

analysis in the proposed rulemaking 

published on April 12, 2012 (78 FR 

21871) discussed the potential 

environmental impacts and existing 

authorities, practices, and controls for 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A as 

substitutes in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers; and propane (R–290) as a 

substitute in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only). These 

refrigerant substitutes and end-uses 

were evaluated and determined to be 

acceptable subject to use conditions 

under SNAP in the December 20, 2011 

final rule (76 FR 78838) (2011 SNAP 

rule). 

EPA received comments on the 

revisions to the venting prohibition 

proposed on April 12, 2012, seeking 

clarification about the applicability of 

the exemption to the venting 

prohibition to various types of 

equipment not mentioned in the 

proposal. Three comments were 

received asking whether the 

determination of an exemption to the 

venting prohibition for isobutane (R– 

600a) and R–441A as substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers 

would also apply to ‘‘household wine 

coolers’’ and ‘‘household beverage 

centers’’ and ‘‘stand-alone ice makers 

designed for household use.’’ This final 

action exempts isobutane (R–600a) and 

R–441A as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers. 

The exemption under 608(c)(2), as 

proposed and as it is being finalized 

with this action, applies only to the uses 

that are acceptable subject to use 

conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule. 

The issue raised by the commenters 

concerns how the SNAP listing is 

interpreted and the issue of these end 

uses was not raised during the comment 

period for the 2011 SNAP rule. Under 

SNAP, we have explained that 

‘‘household refrigerators, freezers and 

combination refrigerators and freezers’’ 

includes household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerator/

freezers intended primarily for 

residential use, although they may be 

used outside the home. Household 

freezers only offer storage space at 

freezing temperatures, unlike household 

refrigerators. See 76 FR at 78833. The 

2011 SNAP rule also notes that the two 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes can 

be used only in refrigerators or freezers 

that meet all requirements listed in 

Supplement SA to UL 250. Id. at 78837, 

codified at appendix R of subpart G to 

40 CFR part 82. To the extent that 

household wine coolers, household 

beverage centers or stand-alone ice 

makers designed for household use meet 

these conditions, they would fit within 

the end use designed in the 2011 SNAP 

rule as ‘‘household refrigerators, freezers 

and combination refrigerators and 

freezers.’’ 

A. Inherent Characteristics of These 

Substances 

Based on the analysis in the proposal 

for this action (April 12, 2012, 78 FR 

21871), EPA finds that the venting, 

release, or disposal of isobutane (R– 

600a) and R–441A as substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers 

and propane (R–290) as a substitute in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only) does not pose a 

threat to the environment based on the 

inherent characteristics of these 

substances, as well as the limited 

quantities used in the relevant 

applications. 

In the proposal (April 12, 2012, 78 FR 

21871), EPA provided an analysis that 

focused on the environmental impacts 

identified as a potential concern under 

SNAP (76 FR 78838) for these 

refrigerant substitutes: Ozone depletion 

potential, global warming potential, 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

effects, and ecosystem risks. As 

discussed in the proposal, this analysis 

was based in part on the fact that the 

volume of hydrocarbons listed as 

acceptable with use conditions under 

the 2011 SNAP rule that could be 

released from the specific uses relevant 

to this exemption would be small. Based 

on this analysis, EPA determines that 

the venting, release, or disposal of 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A as 

substitutes in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers and propane (R–290) as a 

substitute in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only) does 

not pose a significant threat to the 

environment with respect to the 

inherent characteristics of these 

substances. 

The discussion in the proposal also 

noted that in prior rulemakings EPA 

evaluated the potential risks of fire from 

the use of hydrocarbons as refrigerant 

substitutes in certain appliances, and 

engineering approaches to avoid 

ignition sources from within the 

appliance. To address flammability risks 

of hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, 

EPA issued recommendations for their 

safe use in certain end-uses and 

specified use conditions for some enduses through SNAP rulemakings (59 FR 

13044; 76 FR 78832).4 These SNAP 

rules rely on existing regulatory 

requirements and industry standards 

and practices that protect workers, the 

general population, and the 

environment from the flammability risks 

from hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes. EPA additionally provided 

information about potential toxicity and 

occupational exposure of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, 

noting that in prior actions under SNAP, 

EPA had found that these hydrocarbons 

are unlikely to pose such risks, when 

used according to the applicable use 

conditions or regulations. EPA 

explained that the Agency believes that 

the flammability risks and occupational 

exposures to hydrocarbons are 

adequately regulated by Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), building, and fire codes at a 

local and national level. 

In support of EPA’s proposed 

determination to exempt these 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes from 

the venting prohibition in certain end 

uses, the proposal received comments 

from four commenters agreeing with 

EPA’s cited reasons for determining that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
29686 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

release into the environment would not 

pose a threat. The commenters stated 

that it would be safer to vent the small 

amounts than to try to recover them in 

a special container and to transport 

these substitutes afterwards in larger 

containers. 

Three commenters also stated that the 

overall greenhouse gas impact of all the 

activities involved in capture, transport, 

recycling or destruction would generate 

greater greenhouse gas emissions than 

would simply venting the small charge 

of hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the appliances. 

One commenter supported EPA’s 

proposed determination to exempt 

venting, release, or disposal of these 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

because ‘‘there are currently no 

commercially available reclaim devices 

[sic] available in the US rated for use 

with hydrocarbon or other flammable 

refrigerants’’ and because the 

commenter is unaware of facilities 

equipped to accept reclaimed 

hydrocarbon refrigerants from a service 

company. EPA notes, however, that it 

does not believe this commenter means 

‘‘reclaim devices’’ and ‘‘reclaimed 

hydrocarbon refrigerants,’’ as the 

proposed rule focuses on the release of 

the three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes from appliances during the 

maintenance, service, repair, or disposal 

of appliances, and the reclamation of 

refrigerants is a purification process 

often involving a distillation column, to 

which refrigerant recovered from 

appliances is transported in bulk. We 

believe that the commenter means 

‘‘recovery devices’’ and ‘‘recovered 

hydrocarbon refrigerants.’’ 

Another commenter provided the 

following information in support of 

EPA’s proposed determination to 

exempt from the venting prohibition the 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

determined to be acceptable subject to 

use conditions under the 2011 SNAP 

rule. This commenter stated that the 

release of the amounts of hydrocarbon 

(HC) refrigerant approved for residential 

equipment (57g) and commercial standalone equipment (150g) is smaller than 

the amount contained in many 

individual aerosol cans that are used 

every day in the United States. The total 

release from the 2 billion aerosol cans 

sold in the U.S. each year ‘‘are several 

orders of magnitude higher than any 

releases of [the proposed] refrigerant 

charges.’’ 

This same commenter also supports 

EPA’s determination noting that there 

can be energy savings of 12 to 55 

percent from a unit using HC 

refrigerants as compared to a unit using 

HFC refrigerants, with a much greater 

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 

than the amount that might be released 

during maintenance, servicing or repair. 

Finally, another commenter ‘‘agrees 

that the release of HC based refrigerants 

during the maintenance, service or 

repair would have a negligible 

environmental impact.’’ 

EPA received two comments that 

question the determination that the 

venting, release, or disposal of isobutane 

(R–600a) and R–441A as substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and propane (R–290) as a substitute in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only) does not pose a 

significant threat to the environment 

based on the inherent characteristics of 

these substances. One commenter 

believes it is necessary to have recapture 

or recycling requirements for HCs, 

because safety risk still exists at end of 

life, recovery equipment designed for 

flammable refrigerants is available, and 

recovered flammable refrigerants can be 

re-used. EPA agrees that proper safe 

handling practices should be followed 

for hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, 

both for disposal of appliances at the 

end-of-life and for the repair and 

maintenance of appliances. EPA 

included recommendations on the safe 

use and handling of hydrocarbons in the 

2011 SNAP rule, and there are also 

recommendations at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart G, appendix R. 

The Agency supports the safe, 

economical and environmentally 

beneficial recovery, recycling and 

reclamation (re-use) of all hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes. However, at this 

time, EPA does not agree that recovery 

equipment designed specifically to 

handle the three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in this action is readily 

available in the United States. Further, 

at this time, there are not applicable 

standards in the U.S. for certification of 

recovery equipment designed to handle 

these three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes. EPA is not creating a 

recovery requirement at this time, as it 

is not clear that it would be safer, 

economically practical or 

environmentally beneficial to require 

the use of recovery equipment. EPA 

further notes that the commenter did 

not identify an environmental threat 

that is posed by the venting of these 

three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in the end-uses for which 

EPA has found them acceptable subject 

to use conditions in the 2011 SNAP 

rule. 

Another commenter ‘‘does not believe 

that there is improved safety in venting 

flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants 

versus reclaiming flammable 

hydrocarbon refrigerants.’’ This 

commenter states ‘‘it may be more 

hazardous to vent flammable 

hydrocarbon refrigerants or flammable 

hydrocarbon refrigerant/lubricant 

mixture into an uncontrolled 

environment.’’ This commenter states 

that because of the very low minimum 

ignition energy (MIE) of hydrocarbon 

flammable refrigerants (class 3 

flammable under ASHRAE 2010), these 

refrigerants are easily ignited by static 

electricity. EPA believes this concern 

about the ignition of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants for these three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes in the end uses at 

issue in this action was addressed in the 

2011 SNAP rule in which these 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes and 

end-uses were evaluated and 

determined to be acceptable subject to 

use conditions under SNAP. In section 

‘‘B. Flammability’’ of part IV of that 

SNAP rule, titled ‘‘What is the basis for 

EPA’s final action?’’ the Agency 

describes the evaluation and conclusion 

for approving these hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes for the specific 

end-uses under the use conditions. The 

2011 SNAP rule explains that, ‘‘when 

the concentration of a flammable 

refrigerant reaches or exceeds its [lower 

flammability limit] LFL in the presence 

of an ignition source (e.g., a static 

electricity spark resulting from closing a 

door, use of a torch during servicing, or 

a short circuit in wiring that controls the 

motor of a compressor), an explosion or 

fire could occur.’’ 76 FR at 78837. The 

2011 SNAP rule continues by stating 

that, ‘‘To determine whether the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants would present 

flammability concerns for service and 

manufacture personnel or for 

consumers, EPA reviewed the 

submitters’ detailed assessments of the 

probability of events that might create a 

fire, as well as engineering approaches 

to avoid sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. EPA also conducted risk 

screens, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, evaluating reasonable 

worst-case scenarios to model the effects 

of the sudden release of the refrigerants. 

The worst-case scenario analysis for 

each of the three hydrocarbons revealed 

that even if the unit’s full charge were 

emitted within one minute, the 

concentration would not reach the 

[lower flammability limits] LFL for that 

hydrocarbon.’’ Id. at 78839. 

The commenter also noted studies 

that ‘‘show atomized lubricant 

(lubricant that is released within 

refrigerant spray, such as under venting 

conditions), is more flammable than 

liquid lubricant.’’ EPA considered such 

studies and the influence of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 29687 

5U.S. EPA (2011), ‘‘Environmentally Acceptable 

Lubricants,’’ United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater 

Management, November 2011, EPA 800–R–11–002. 

lubricant on the lower flammability 

limits (LFLs) of the hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in the specific end-uses 

when finding them acceptable subject to 

use conditions under the SNAP program 

(see December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832, 

sections ‘‘D. Charge Size Limitation 

(Household Refrigeration)’’ and ‘‘E. 

Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food 

Refrigeration)’’ and discussions of 

standards UL 250 and UL 471 regarding 

lubricant oil). In this rule, EPA 

determines that the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes do not pose a 

significant threat to the environment 

when released from the relevant end 

uses under the use conditions 

established in 2011 SNAP rule, taking 

into account this same information 

about the atomized lubricant that was 

discussed regarding the solubility of oil 

in establishing the acceptable use 

condition of each charge size limit in 

the 2011 SNAP rule. Id. at 78845–78846. 

The commenter raised concerns that 

‘‘venting hydrocarbon refrigerant may 

potentially carry lubricants dissolved 

with the refrigerant . . . into the 

atmosphere.’’ The commenter believes 

that an exemption for venting, release, 

or disposal of the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes sends an incorrect 

message to the market on best practices, 

and that this message is counter to 

‘‘responsible use and handling.’’ While 

EPA understands this perspective and 

agrees that product stewardship is an 

important overall goal, the very small 

amount of dissolved lubricant in the 

small hydrocarbon charge size 

established as a limit for each of the 

end-use categories in the 2011 SNAP 

rule will significantly mitigate the 

release into the environment and the 

impact of any release into the 

environment of lubricants dissolved in 

the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

that may result from any venting, 

release or disposal that may occur under 

this final action. EPA also notes that 

many of the lubricants used with 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as alkyl 

benzene and polyalkylene glycol, are 

considered environmentally acceptable 

because they biodegrade easily as noted 

in EPA’s document on environmentally 

acceptable lubricants.5 After 

considering these two comments 

questioning EPA’s determination in this 

action, as well as the comments 

supporting that determination, we 

believe that the venting, release, or 

disposal of these three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes would not pose a 

significant threat to the environment 

based on the inherent characteristics of 

these substances, in light of the amounts 

that could be released under this action. 

B. Limits and Controls Under Other 

Authorities, Regulations or Practices 

In the proposal (78 FR 21871), EPA 

explained that the limits and controls 

under other authorities, regulations or 

practices adequately control the release 

of and exposure to the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes and 

mitigate risks from any possible release 

in the end-uses specified in the 2011 

SNAP rule. This conclusion is relevant 

to the second factor mentioned above in 

the overall determination of whether 

venting, release, or disposal of a 

refrigerant substitute poses a threat to 

the environment—that is, a 

consideration of the extent that such 

venting, release, or disposal is 

adequately controlled by other 

authorities, regulations, or practices. As 

such, this conclusion is another part of 

the determination that the venting, 

release or disposal of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the specified end uses under the 2011 

SNAP rule does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

EPA notes that other applicable 

environmental regulatory requirements 

still apply and are not affected by the 

determination made in this action. As 

one example, state and local air quality 

agencies may include VOC emissions 

reductions strategies in state 

implementation plans developed to 

meet and maintain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

that would apply to hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes. For instance, for 

those refrigerant substitutes that are 

VOCs as defined in 40 CFR 50.100(s), a 

State might adopt additional control 

strategies if necessary for an ozone 

nonattainment area to attain the NAAQS 

for ozone. 

Several commenters supported the 

determination that the release of the 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

determined to be acceptable subject to 

use conditions in specified end uses 

under the 2011 SNAP rule does not pose 

a threat to the environment because of 

limits under other authorities, such as 

OSHA requirements, as well as national 

and local building and fire codes. These 

commenters believe the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

today’s action should be exempt from 

the venting prohibition because there 

are sufficient limits and controls under 

other authorities, regulations or 

practices that adequately control the 

release and exposure in the specific 

end-uses. 

One commenter requested an 

explanation of how ‘‘knowingly venting 

propane . . . would not be disposal of 

a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.21).’’ 

The commenter is correct that propane 

refrigerant could technically be 

characterized as a hazardous waste 

under 40 CFR 261.21 specifying the 

characteristic of ignitability. However, 

this rule would only allow for 

incidental releases of propane (R–290) 

found acceptable subject to use 

conditions under the 2011 SNAP rule 

for use in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only). These 

releases would not be subject to RCRA 

requirements for the disposal of 

hazardous waste as the release would 

occur incidentally during the 

maintenance, service and repair of the 

equipment, and this would not 

constitute disposal of the refrigerant 

charge as a solid waste, per se. The 

Agency further notes that it discussed 

potential human health risks from the 

release of propane in this end use in the 

2011 SNAP rule, and it provided 

information from that rule in the 

proposal for this rule. See 76 FR at 

78839 and 78 FR at 21874–75. In the 

2011 SNAP rule, the Agency considered 

the risk of asphyxiation to workers 

(store employees and consumers), and 

evaluated a worst-case scenario and 

determined that the charge size at issue 

was much smaller than the charge size 

that would result in the no observable 

adverse effect level (NOAEL) for 

hypoxia. 76 FR at 78839. The Agency 

also evaluated toxicity impacts from the 

propane end use to workers, consumers, 

and the general public, and found that 

propane in this end use did not pose a 

toxicity threat based on either 

occupational exposures, as the timeweighted average exposures were well 

below the industry and government 

exposure limits, or on consumer 

exposures, as the time-weighted average 

exposures were significantly lower than 

the NOAEL and/or the acute exposure 

guideline level (AEGL). Id. Further, for 

the 2011 SNAP Rule EPA modeled 

exposure risk to the general population 

for propane in this end use and 

concluded that it was unlikely to pose 

a toxicity risk to the general population 

when used according to the applicable 

use conditions or regulations because 

modeled exposures were significantly 

lower than the reference concentration. 

Id. In addition, in this action the Agency 

is determining that these releases do not 

pose a threat to the environment, as 

described elsewhere in this preamble. 

EPA received several comments that 

support the determination that, in the 

words of one of the commenters, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
29688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) also include 

Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), which have at least one 

double bond between carbon atoms. 

‘‘release of HC based refrigerants during 

the maintenance, service or repair 

would have a negligible environmental 

impact’’ in part, because of limits and 

controls under other regulations and 

practices, such as OSHA requirements 

and building and fire codes. However, 

one commenter noted that ‘‘requiring 

capture continues the best practice 

currently being used and does not create 

another process dissimilar to the current 

requirements for CFCs, HCFCs and 

HFCs and blends.’’ This commenter 

noted that, ‘‘there are technologies 

which would facilitate [recovery of HCs] 

. . . passive ‘draw through’ processes 

such as activated carbon adsorption 

capture [as] . . . one example. The 

process is simple and can be used with 

the current equipment the service and 

repair industry typically has available.’’ 

EPA understands that this process could 

be used, although there is no applicable 

standard in the U.S. for how it would be 

implemented and it would create an 

additional risk with the management of 

the activated carbon that has adsorbed 

the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitute 

due to the aggregation of a larger 

quantity of a material containing a 

flammable substance. EPA also notes, as 

did other commenters, that the energy 

for implementing any recapture process 

from the appliances and transporting it, 

and reclaiming or disposing of the 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitute, 

especially a process using activated 

carbon adsorption capture or other 

similar ‘‘draw through’’ substance that 

would then be sent for final disposal, 

recovery or recycling of the material, 

would likely generate greater 

greenhouse gas emissions than simply 

venting the very small charges of the 

three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes from the specified end-use 

appliances. 

One commenter suggested that, 

‘‘disposal of units containing HC 

charges is vastly different than 

maintenance, service or repair.’’ This 

commenter went on to say that ‘‘HC 

refrigerants should be recovered by 

Certified Technicians prior to disposal 

to protect the recyling industry and 

eliminate confusion to technicians and 

other personnel who are not required to 

obtain EPA Certification to handle 

refrigerants.’’ The Agency notes that 

certification of a technician is not 

required for recovery of refrigerant 

during disposal of small appliances (see 

40 CFR 82.156(a)), such as the 

household refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator/freezer combinations 

addressed in this rule. At this time, the 

regulatory requirements for technician 

certification at 40 CFR 82.156(a) are 

limited to recovery of ODS and ODS 

blends. However, EPA believes 

employees at disposal facilities are very 

often certified technicians or aware of 

EPA requirements regarding recovery of 

the refrigerants from equipment during 

disposal. While a technician 

certification is not required in order to 

use the exemption from the venting 

prohibition in today’s action, EPA 

encourages disposal facilities to ensure 

that employees are familiar with how to 

safely handle and vent the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the specified end uses addressed by 

today’s rule. In addition, the commenter 

provides no reason to believe that there 

is any potential environmental threat 

from venting during disposal that would 

differ from any potential environmental 

threat from venting during maintenance, 

service or repair. In fact, today’s action 

could reduce the number of appliances 

that are disposed of while still charged 

with these three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes because it will no longer be 

prohibited to vent those refrigerant 

substitutes in the specified end uses 

during maintenance, service, and repair. 

Thus, EPA does not believe that it needs 

to address disposal separately in the 

regulations finalized in this action. 

As a suggestion for protecting workers 

in the appliance recycling industry the 

commenter proposed that ‘‘units using 

flammable refrigerants be marked in a 

manner that an end of life processing or 

recycling facility can easily identify the 

hazard from a distance of 36 inches 

while looking at the back of the unit.’’ 

With respect to the comment regarding 

risks to workers during the disposal of 

equipment at end-of-life, EPA agrees 

that flammability is a reason for caution 

during disposal of appliances 

containing hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes. EPA notes that some of the 

use conditions in the 2011 SNAP rule 

were required in order to address this 

potential risk. For example, the labeling 

requirements and the requirement for 

coloring of tubing will serve as 

notification to servicing and disposal 

personnel that the appliance contains a 

flammable refrigerant substitute. The 

labeling requirements in the 2011 SNAP 

final rule require an increased lettering 

size as compared to the UL standards 

effective when that final rule was issued 

(UL 2000, UL 2010) for the cautionary 

statement about flammability that must 

be attached to the appliance to provide 

even better notification to those 

involved in appliance recycling. 

For the reasons explained in this 

action and in the proposal (78 FR 

21871), EPA concludes that release of 

and exposure to the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerants during the maintenance, 

repair, servicing or disposal of 

appliances is controlled by limits and 

controls under other authorities, 

regulations or practices. EPA further 

concludes that those limits and controls 

help mitigate risks to the environment 

that may be posed by the venting, 

release or disposal of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants during the 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances. 

IV. What is EPA’s determination 

whether venting, release or disposal 

poses a threat to the environment? 

Today EPA is finalizing a decision to 

exempt from the venting prohibition 

three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes that EPA listed as acceptable 

subject to use conditions in the 

specified end uses under the 2011 

SNAP rule, as the EPA is determining 

that the venting, release, or disposal of 

these substitutes does not pose a threat 

to the environment. Specifically, EPA is 

exempting from the venting prohibition 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A, as 

refrigerant substitutes in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers, and propane 

(R–290), as a refrigerant substitute in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only). EPA received 

seven comments supporting this 

decision. EPA addressed in this action 

commenters’ concerns regarding the 

release of the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes into the 

environment. The exemption to the 

venting prohibition in this action does 

not apply to refrigerants that are blends 

containing hydrocarbons and any 

amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC,6 or 

PFC. 

EPA reviewed the potential 

environmental impacts of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the end uses for which they are listed 

as acceptable subject to use conditions 

under the 2011 SNAP rule, as well as 

the authorities, controls and practices in 

place for these three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes. EPA also 

considered the public comments on the 

proposal for this action. Based on this 

review, EPA concludes that the release 

of these three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in these end uses is not 

expected to pose a significant threat to 

the environment based on the inherent 

characteristics of these substances and 

the limited quantities used in the 

relevant applications. EPA additionally 

concludes that existing authorities, 

controls, and practices help mitigate 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 29689 

environmental risk from the release of 

these three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in these end uses. In light of 

these two conclusions, EPA is 

determining, in accordance with 

608(c)(2), that based on current 

evidence and risk analyses, the venting, 

release or disposal of these hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes during the 

maintenance, servicing, repairing or 

disposing of the relevant appliances 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment. EPA is therefore 

extending the regulatory exemption 

from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 

§ 82.154(a)(1) to include these three 

hydrocarbons in the specific end uses 

that were found acceptable subject to 

use conditions under the 2011 SNAP 

rule. 

V. What revision to the venting 

prohibition is EPA finalizing today? 

This rule exempts from the 

prohibition under section 608 of the Act 

against knowing venting, releasing, or 

disposal of refrigerant substitutes during 

the maintenance, servicing, repair or 

disposal of appliances the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the end uses for which they were listed 

as acceptable subject to use conditions 

under the 2011 SNAP rule: Propane, 

isobutane, and the hydrocarbon blend 

R–441A. 

In this action the regulatory text is 

presented differently from what 

appeared in the proposed rulemaking 

published on April 12, 2012 (78 FR 

21871). These differences reflect 

modifications that EPA is making in this 

action to the numbering and 

organization of the regulations at 40 

CFR 82.154(a)(1) to clarify the effective 

dates for the exemptions under 

82.154(a)(1). In particular, EPA is 

creating sub-sections under 82.154(a)(1), 

to reflect the effective dates of 

individual regulatory actions. The first 

sub-section, 82.154(a)(1)(i), will 

preserve the effective date of June 13, 

2005, reflecting the Agency’s prior 

action to create an exemption to the 

venting prohibition. This action will be 

in the next sub-section, 82.154(a)(1)(ii), 

reflecting the Agency’s decision 

regarding the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes for the specific 

end-uses listed as acceptable subject to 

use conditions under the 2011 SNAP 

rule. These revisions to the numbering 

and organization of the regulatory text 

do not change the text of the regulatory 

provisions that were previously codified 

at 82.154(a)(1) and are not intended to 

reopen or to change the substance or 

effect of those regulations in any way, 

although the text of those provisions is 

reprinted for clarity. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

5135; October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 

2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). This action is an Agency 

determination and revision of existing 

regulatory provisions. It contains no 

new requirements for collecting 

information or reporting. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart F of 40 

CFR 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0256. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is primarily engaged in the repair 

and maintenance of appliances and 

defined by NAIC code 811412 with 

annual receipts of less than 14 million 

dollars, or engaged in separating and 

sorting recyclable materials from nonhazardous waste streams (e.g., scrap 

yards) and defined by NAIC code 

562920 and fewer than 100 employees, 

or merchant wholesale distribution of 

industrial scrap and other recyclable 

materials and defined by NAIC code 

423930 with annual receipts of less than 

12.5 million dollars (based on Small 

Business Administration size 

standards), (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

This final rule is primarily 

deregulatory as it would exempt persons 

from the prohibition under section 

608(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act, and as 

implemented by regulations at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1), against knowingly venting 

or otherwise knowingly releasing or 

disposing of refrigerant substitutes 

during the maintenance, servicing, 

repair or disposal of appliances for three 

specific hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in specific end uses. We 

have therefore concluded that today’s 

final rule will relieve regulatory burden 

for all affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Thus, this action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action is deregulatory in nature and 

creates an exemption under section 

608(c)(2) of the Act from a statutory and 

regulatory requirement. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
29690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in EO 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

This action is deregulatory in nature 

and creates an exemption under section 

608(c)(2) of the Act from a statutory and 

regulatory requirement, which would 

benefit any state, local, or tribal 

government to the extent that they are 

affected. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This 

final rule is deregulatory in nature and 

would create an exemption under 

section 608(c)(2) of the Act that could be 

available for the tribal communities or 

Indian tribal governments. Thus, EO 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to the EO 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in section III 

in the preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rule does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule exempting under section 608(c)(2) 

of the Act certain hydrocarbons from the 

venting prohibition in certain end uses 

listed as acceptable subject to use 

conditions will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because the release of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

would not pose a threat to the 

environment. This final action would 

not have any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective June 23, 2014. 

VII. References 

The documents referenced in the final 

rule in which the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes in specific enduses were evaluated and determined to 

be acceptable subject to use conditions 

under SNAP in the December 20, 2011 

final rule (76 FR 78832), were also 

referenced in the preamble of the 

proposed rule published on April 12, 

2012 (78 FR 21871). All documents for 

these two previously published rules are 

located in the Air Docket at the address 

listed in section titled ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document. Unless 

specified otherwise, all documents are 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0580 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Listed below are 

only new documents not previously 

cited in that previously published rule 

and previously published proposal that 

were referenced in this action. 

EPA, 2011, ‘‘Environmentally Acceptable 

Lubricants,’’ United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater 

Management, November 2011, EPA 800–R– 

11–002 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Recycling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: May 15, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR Part 82 is to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– 

7671g. 

■ 2. Section 82.154 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 82.154 Prohibitions. 

(a)(1) No person maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 29691 

appliances may knowingly vent or 

otherwise release into the environment 

any refrigerant or substitute from such 

appliances, with the exception of the 

following substitutes in the following 

end-uses: 

(i) Effective June 13, 2005, 

(A) Ammonia in commercial or 

industrial process refrigeration or in 

absorption units; 

(B) Hydrocarbons in industrial 

process refrigeration (processing of 

hydrocarbons); 

(C) Chlorine in industrial process 

refrigeration (processing of chlorine and 

chlorine compounds); 

(D) Carbon dioxide in any application; 

(E) Nitrogen in any application; or 

(F) Water in any application. 

(ii) Effective June 23, 2014: 

(A) Isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

or 

(B) Propane (R–290) in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–12028 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES