*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

1 of 96 **EO_12866 SNAP HCs 2060 -**  **AP54 FRM 2011 10**  **2 7**  **.docx ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Part 82 [EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OAR** **- 2009**  **- 0286; FRL**  **- xxxx**  **- x]**  **RIN 2060 -**  **AP54 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes**  **for Ozone -**  **Depleting Substances –**  **Hydrocarbon Refrigerants AGENCY:**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . **ACTION:** Final Rule. **SUMMARY:** Pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program, this acti on lists isobutane (R - 600a) and R - 441A as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) - 12 and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) - 22 in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers. This action also lists propane (R - 290) as acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a substitute for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 in retail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only). **DATES:** This final rule is effective on [ IN SERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLI CATION IN THE FEDERAL REGI STER ]. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved b y the Director of the Federal Register as of [ INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ] . **ADDRESSES:** EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA - HQ OAR - 200 9 - 0286. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some in formation is not publicly available, i.e., c onfidential b usiness*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

2 of 96 i nformation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as cop yri ghted material, is not posted on the website and will be made publicl y available onl y in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials can be found either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Con stitution 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 holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566 - 1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** Margaret Sheppard , Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; te lephone number (202) 343 - 9163 ; fax number (202) 343 - 23 38 ; e - mail address: sheppard.margaret @epa.gov. Notices and rulemakings under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program are available at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents**  I. General Information A. Background B. Does T his A ction Apply to M e? C. Which A crony

ms and Abbreviations Are U sed in the P reamble? II. How Does the SNAP P rogram W ork? A. What Are the S tatutory R equirements an d Authority for the SNAP P rogram? B. What Are EPA’s R egulations Implementing S ection 612? C. How D o the R egulations for the SNAP P rogram W ork? D. Where C an I G et A dditional Information About the SNAP P rogram? III. What D id EPA P ropose, and What Are W e F inalizing? A. Proposed R

ule B. Final R

ule*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

3 of 96 IV . What I s the Basis for EPA’s Final Action? A. Environmental Impacts B. F lammability C. Asphy xiation D. Toxicity V. What I s EPA’s R esponse to C omments on the May 2010 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking? A. EPA’s A cceptability D etermination B. New E quipment O nly ; N ot Intended for U se as a R etrofit A lternative C. Compliance with ULStandards D. Charge S ize L imitation ( H ousehold Refrigeration) E. Charge S ize L imitation ( R etail F ood R efrigeration) F. Labeling G. Color - C oded H oses and P iping H. Unique F ittings I. Small C ontainers J. Use of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Other End - uses K. Training L. Other Options Considered M. Other Comments on Proposed Rule VI . What O ther C hanges I s EPA M aking in the F inal R ule? A . Propane as Substitute for R - 502 B . Wording of Use Conditions for L abeling C . “Further Information” Column in L isting Decisions VII. Statutory

and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory

Flexibility

Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply , Distribution, or Use I. National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act VIII. References **I. General Information** A. Background*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

4 of 96 This rule pertains to three hydrocarbon refrigerants: isobutane, propane , and R - 441A . Hydrocarbon refrigerants have been in use for over 15 ye ars in countries such as Germany , the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan in the end - uses addressed by this final rule . In Europe and Asia, equipment manufacturers have designed and tested household and commercial refrigerators and freezers to account for flammability and safety

concerns associated with hydrocarbon refrigerants. The 2010 Report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC) estimates that approximately

100 million household refrigerators and freezers are manufactured annually worldwide. One - third of these now use either isobutane or an isobutane/propane blend, and this proporti on is expected to increase to 75 percent b y 2020. Inthe retail sector, the RTOC observes that hydrocarbon refrigerants continue to gain market share in Europe and Japan. 1 Because hydrocarbon refrigerants have zero ozone depletion potential (ODP) and very low global warming potential (GWP) compared to other refrigerants , man y companies are interested in using them in the United States (U.S.) as well. In this action , EPA addresses SNAP submissions for use of three hydrocarbon refrigerants in two end - uses: ( 1) household refrigerators, freezer s, and combination refrigerators and freezers ; and (2) retail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only). The submitter of R - 441A - A.S. Trust and Holdings - has provided documentation to EPA, available in the docket for this rulemaking, that it has withdrawn its submission for the blend originall y submitted as “HCR - 188C.” Because the submission is no longer pending before EPA, we are not finalizing a SNAP listing for that blend. Any person wishing to introduce that blend 1 RTOC, 2010, pp. 50, 51, 64.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

5 of 96 into interstate commerce would be required to submit a new SNAP application under EPA regulations. 2 1. What are isobutane, propane, and R - 441A? Isobutane and propane are hydrocarbons , and R - 441A is a blend of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are flammable organic compounds made up of hydrogen and carbon. Isobutane, also called 2 - methylpropane, has four carbon atoms , the chemical formula C 4 H 10 , and a branched structure. It i s often written as CH(CH 3 ) 2 - CH 3 to distinguish it from butane , a straight - chain h ydrocarbon with the same chemical formula . Isobutane’s Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry

Number is 75 - 28 - 5. As a refrigerant, isobutane is designated as R - 600a by the American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating and Air - Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 34 - 2010 “Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants” ( ASHRAE, 2010). Itis also referred to as HC - 600a and iso - C 4 H 10 . Propane has three carbon atoms, th e chemical formula C 3 H 8 , and the CAS Number 74 - 98 - 6. As a refrigerant, propane has ASHRAE designation R - 290. It is also referred to as HC - 290 and CH 3 CH 2 CH 3 . R - 441A is a blend of four hydrocarbons: ethane (3.1 percent by mass) , propane ( 54.8 percent by mass ) , isobutane ( 6.0 percent by mass ), and butane ( 36.1 percent by mass ) . This blend was originall y submitted to EPA under the trade name “HCR - 188C1,” and EPA used that nomenclature in the proposed rule (75 FR 25799). In February 2011 , this blend rece ived the

2 The submitter has informed EPA th at that it is now marketing R - 441A (the blend originally submitted as “HCR188C1”) under the trade name “HCR - 188C.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6 of 96 designation R - 441A under ASHRAE Standard 34 - 2010. 3 Throughout this final rule , we refer to that blend as R - 441A. ASHRAE Standard 34 - 2010 categorizes isobutane, propane, and R - 441A in the A3 s afety group. ASHRAE’s safety group classification consi sts of two alphanumeric characters (e.g., A2 or B1). The capital letter indicates the toxicity , and the numeral denotes the flammability . Figure 1 illustrates these safety group classifications. Figure 1. Refrigerant Safety Group Classification Safety GroupIncreasingFlammability Higher Flammability A3 B3 Lo wer Flammability A2 B2 No Flame Propagation A1 B1

Lo wer Toxicity Higher Toxicity Increasing Toxicity ASHRAE classifies Class A refrigerants as refrigerants for which toxicity has not been identified at concentrations less than 400 ppm by volume, based on data used to determine a workplace exposure limit for long - term exposure, such as a threshold limit va lue - time - weighted average (TLV - TWA) or consistent indices. Class B refrigerants show evidence of toxicity below 400 ppm on an 8 - hour time - weighted average (TWA) . Refrigerants also receive one of three possible flammability classifications: 1 (no flame propagation), 2 (lower flammability), or 3 (higher flammability). Class 3 refrigerants exhibit flame propagation at 60 °C and 101.3 kPa, and have either a lower flammability limit (LFL) of less than or equal to 0.10 kg/m 3 or a heat of combustion greater tha n or equal to 19,000 kJ/kg.
3 See Addendum g to Standard 34 - 2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

7 of 96 2. Which end - uses are covered in our final decision? a . Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator s and freezers This end - use , which we refer to as “household refrigeration” in this preamble, consists of ap pliances that are intended primaril y for residential use, although they may be used outside the home. Household freezers offer storage space onl y at freezing temperatures. Products with both a refrigerator and freezer in a single unit are most common. This final rule includes a use condition that limits the refrigerant charge in this end - use to 57 grams (2.0 ounces) or less for each sealed refrigeration s ys tem (i.e., compressor, condenser, evaporator, and refrigerant piping). EPA is also requiring other use conditions as described in Section III ( “ What D id EPA P ropose, and What Are W e F inalizing? ” ) below. b. R etail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only) This end - use , which we refer to as “retail food refrigeration ” in this preamble, includ es the refrigeration s ys tems, including cold storage cases, designed to chill food or keep it at a cold temperature for commercial sale. This final rule addresses the use of h ydrocarbons in stand - alone units only . A stand - alone appliance is one u s ing a hermeticall y- sealed compressor and for which all refrigerant - containing components, including but not limited to at least one compressor, condenser, and evaporator, are assembled into a single piece of equipment before delivery to the ultimate consumer or user. Such equipment does not require addition or removal of refrigerant when placed into initial operation. Stand - alone equipment is used to store chilled beverages or frozen products . Examples include reach - in beverage coolers and stand - alone ice cream c abinets. Our acceptability determination does not apply to large refrigeration s ys tems such as walk - in coolers or the direct expansion refrigeration sy stems ty picall y found in retail food stores. It also does not apply

to vending machines.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

8 of 96 This final rule includes a use condition that limits the refrigerant charge in this end - use to 150 grams (5. 3 ounces) or less. EPA is also requiring other use conditions as described in Section III (“ What D id EPA P ropose, and What Are W e F inalizing ? ”) below . B . Does T his A ction Apply to M e? This final rule lists the use of three alternative refrigerants in two end - uses : household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers; and retail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only). Potentially regulated entities that may use isobutane (R - 600a) or R - 441A in household refrigeration or propane (R - 290) in retail food refrigeration include: Table 1

–Potentially Regulated Entities, by North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code or Subsector Category NAICS code or

subsector Description of regulated entities 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 443111 Appliance Stores: Household - ty pe Industry 445120 Convenience Stores Industry 445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores Industry 722211 Limited - Service Restaurants Industry 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors Industry 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance Industry 423620 Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers Industry 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather functions as a guide regarding entities that are likel y to use the substitute whose use is regulated b y this action. If you have any questions about whether this action applies to a particular entity , consult the person listed in the preceding section, “FOR FURTHER I NF ORMATION CONTACT.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

9 of 96 C. Which A crony

ms and Abbreviations Are U sed in the P reamble? Below is a list of acron yms and abbreviations used in the preamble of this rule. AEGL

–Acute Exposure Guideline Level ASHRAE

–American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air - Conditioning Engineers ANSI

–American National Standards Institute CAA

– Clean Air Act CAS

– Chemical Abstracts Service CBI

–c onfidential b usiness i nformation CFC

–chlorofluorocarbon CFR

– Code of Federal Regulations EPA

– United States Environmental Protection Agency FR

–Federal Register FTA

–Fault - Tree Analy sis GHG

– greenhouse g as GWP

–global warming potential HC

– hydrocarbon HCFC

– hydrochlorofluorocarbon HFC

– hydrofluorocarbon IC F

–ICF International, Inc. ICR

–i nformation c ollection r equest IEC

–International Electrotechnical Commission LF L

–lower flammability

limit mg/l

–milligrams per liter*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

10 of 96 NAI CS

– North American Industrial Classification Sy stem NARA

– National Archives and Records Administration NI OSH

– U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOAE L

– no observable adverse effect level NPRM

– n otice of p roposed r

ulemaking NTTAA

– National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OEM

–original equipment manufacturer ODP

–ozone depletion potential ODS

–ozone - depleting substance OMB

– United States Office of Management and Budget OSHA

– United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration PMS

–Pantone® Matching S ys tem ppm – parts per million RFA

–Regulatory

Flexibility

Act RfC

– reference concentration RTOC

–Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technic al Options Committee SNAP

– Significant New Alternatives Policy TEAP

–Technology

and Economic Assessment Panel TSCA

–Toxic Substances Control Act TWA

–time - weighted average UL

–Underwriters Laboratories Inc. UMRA

– Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UNEP

– United Nations Environment Programme*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

11 of 96 VOC

–volatile organic compound WMO

–World Meteorological Organization **II. How Does the SNAP P**  **rogram W**  **ork?** A. What Are the S tatutory R equirements and Authority for the SNAP P rogram? 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 Significant New Alternatives Policy

(SNAP) program. The major provisions of s ection 612 are: 1. Rulemaking Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (i.e., chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, meth ylchloroform, methyl bromide, and h ydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II substance (i.e., h ydrochlorofluorocarbon) 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 currentl y or potentiall y available. 2. L isting of unacceptable/ a cceptable s ubstitutes Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding lis t of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of acceptable substitutes is found at http://www.epa.gov/ o zone/snap/lists/index.html , and the lists of substitutes that are “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable sub ject to narrowed use limits” are in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82. 3. Petition p rocess 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 s ection 612(c). Th e Agency has 90 day s to*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

12 of 96 grant or den y a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months. 4. 90 - day n otification Section 612(e) directs EPA to require an y person who produces a chemical sub stitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency

not less than 90 day s 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 w ith the producer's unpublished health and safet y 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 Iand 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 altern ative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class Iand II substances. B. What Are EPA’s R egulations Implementing S ection 612? On March 18, 1994, EPA published the original rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors ( subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors - refrigeration and air condit ioning; foam blowing; cleaning solvents; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

13 of 96 tobacco expansion - are the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS. Sec tion 612 of the CAA requires EPA to ensure that substitutes found acceptable do not present a significantly

greater risk to human health and the environment than other substitutes that are currentl y or potentially available. C. How D o the R egulations for the SNAP P rogram W ork? Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide notice to the Agency , including health and safety i nformation on the substitute , at least 90 day s before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to the persons planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce, 4 which ty pically are chemical manufacturers but may include importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end - users 5 . The regulations identify certain narrow exemptions from the notification requirement, such as research and development and test marketing (40 CFR 82.176(b)(4) and (5), respectivel y). The Agency

has identified four possible decision categories for substitutes that are submitted for evaluation : acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)) . Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained in the paragraphs below. Substitutes that are 4 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any p roduct 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 C olumbia. 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. 5 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end - use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

14 of 96 deemed acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant end - use s in the sector. After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine that a substitute is acceptable onl y if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are me t 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 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 - use s or specific applications within an industry sector . EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” The Agency requires the user of a narrowed - use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for the specific application by conducting comprehensive studies . A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end - use s that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in an unacceptable manner and is in violation of s ection 612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP regulations . The Agency

publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register (FR) . EPA publishes decisions concerning substitutes that are deemed acceptable subject to use restrictions (use conditions and/or narrowed use limits), or substitutes deemed unacceptable, as proposed rulemakings to provide the public with an opportunity to comment , before publishing final decisions . In contrast, EPA publi shes decisions concerning substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions in “notices of acceptability ,” rather than as proposed and final rules. As described*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

15 of 96 in the March 18, 1994, rule initially implementing the SNAP program , EPA does not bel ieve that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose an y sanction nor prevent an yone from using a substitute. Many SNAP listings include “ C omments” or “ F urther Inf ormation” 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 lis ted are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated b y the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The “ Further Information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legall y binding under the SNAP program , EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the
“ Further Information ” column in their use of these substitutes. Inman y inst ances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus man y of the statements , if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant ch anges i n existing operating practices. D. Where C an I G et A dditional Information About the SNAP P rogram? For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s Ozone Laye r Protection website at : www.epa .gov/ozone/snap/index.html. For more information on the Agency 's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the March 18, 1994, SNAP final rulemaking (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations is found at : http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html . **III. What D**  **id EPA P**  **ropose, and W**  **hat A**  **re W**  **e F**  **inalizing?***** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

16 of 96 A. Proposed R

ule On May 10, 2010, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (75 FR 25799) to list isobutane (R - 600a) and the hydrocarbon blends HCR - 188C and HCR - 188C1 as “acceptable, subject to use conditions,” as substitutes for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) - 12 and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) - 22 6 in household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers. 7 (This preamble refers to HCR - 188C1 as R - 441A.) EPA also proposed to list propane (R - 290) as “acceptable, subject to use conditions,” as a substitut e for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 8 in r etail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only). For each substitute , EPA proposed the following use conditions: (1) These refrigerants may be used onl y in new equipment designed specifically and clearl y identified for the refrigerant (i.e., none of these substitutes may be used as a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment). (2) These refrigerants may be used onl y in refrigerators or freezers that meet all requirements listed in the 1 0 th edition of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard UL 250 (household refrigeration end - use) or the 10th edition of Standard UL 471 (retail food refrigeration end use).

6 CFC - 12 is also referred to as R - 12, CCl 2 F 2 and dichlorodifluoromethane. HCFC - 22 is also referred to as R - 22, CHClF 2 , chlorodifluoromethane, and difluorochloromethane. 7 HCR - 188C and HCR - 188C1 submissions included window air conditioners as an end - use. EPA is acting on this end - use in a separate rulemaking. As discussed previously, “HCR - 188C” is the name of a blend that has been withdrawn from review for the household foo d refrigeration end - use. 8 R - 502 is a blend of CFC - 115 (51.2% by weight) and HCFC - 22 (48.8%). CFC - 115 is also referred to as R - 115, C 2 ClF 5 , chloropentafluoroethane, and pentafluorochloroethane.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

17 of 96 ( 3 ) The quantity of the substitute refrigerant (i.e., “charge size”) in a refrigerator or freezer shall not exceed 57 grams (2.0 ounces) in the household refrigeration end - use or 150 grams (5.3 ounces) in the retail food refrigeration end - use. (4) Similar to clauses SA6.1.1 to SA6.1.2 of UL250 and SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of UL 471, the following markings, or the equivalent, shall be provided and shall be permanent: (a) "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." (b) "D ANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." (c) “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consul t Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed." (d) “CAUT ION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properl y In Accordance With Federal O r Lo cal Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used." ( e) “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully . Flammable Refrigerant Used." The marking described in clause (a) above shall be permanently attached on or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer. The markings described in clauses (b) and (c) above shall be located near the machine compartment. The marking described in clause (d) above shall be permanently attached on the exterior of the refrigerator. The marking described in clause (e) above shall be permanently attached near an y and all exposed refrigerant tubing. All of these markings shall be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (1 ⁄4 inch) high.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

18 of 96 ( 5 ) The refrigerator or freezer must have red, Pantone® Matching Sy stem (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other devices through wh ich the refrigerant passes, ty picall y known as the service port , to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be applied at all service p orts and parts of the unit where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected , and must extend a minimum of 1 inch in both directions from such locations. (6) The refrigerator or freez er must have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non - flammable refrigerant. “Differ” means that either the diameter must differ b y at least 1/16 inch or the thread direction must be reversed. The unique fittings must be permanently affixed to the unit and may not be accessed with an adaptor until the end - of

- life of the unit. (7) These refrigerants may not be sold for use as a refrigerant in containers designed to contain less than 5 pounds (2. 3 kg) 9 of r efrigerant. The proposed rule also included several recommendations classified as “ Further Information .” These addressed personal protective equipment, proximity to a Class B dry powder - ty pe fire extinguisher, proper ventilation, use of spark - proof tools, recovery equipment, training, refri gerant storage, and evacuation. Finally , in the proposed rule , EPA sought information and comment on several other issues:  The availability

of industry - wide training on flammable refrigerants for refrigerant technicians ;

9 The proposed rule inadvertently represented 5 pounds as 2.8 kilograms instead of 2.3 kg, which is accurate.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

19 of 96  Whether EPA should limit the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants onl y for use in the original equipment manufacturers’ (OEMs’) specific appliances, as described in the application;  Whether the use conditions should require “spark - proof” circuits in the design of equipment using h ydrocarbon refrigerants;  The availability

in the U.S. of recovery

units that are designed specificall y for hydrocarbons;  Whether EPA should, in a future rulemaking, consider an exemption for hydrocarbon refrigerants from the venting p rohibition under s ection 608 of the Clean Air Act;  Whether EPA should require only one condition for each refrigerant: to meet the UL 250 or 471 standards; and  Whether EPA should find hydrocarbon refrigerants unacceptable until an industrywide standard ex ists for servicing refrigerators and freezers using h ydrocarbon refrigerants. B. Final R

ule After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, EPA is finalizing a listing for hydrocarbon refrigerants in the household refrigeration and retail fo od refrigeration end - uses. EPA is taking action on the specific refrigerant/end - use combinations described in the proposed rule. We are: (1) finding isobutane acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the household refrigeration end - use; (2) finding propane acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the retail food refrigeration end - use; and (3) finding R - 441A (submitted as “HCR - 188C1,” as discussed in Section I .A.1 above) acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the household refrigeration end - use. As dis cussed above, the submitter has withdrawn its application for the*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

20 of 96 blend submitted as “HCR - 188C,” and because that submission is no longer pending before the Agency , EPA is not finalizing a SNAP listing for that blend. The submitter has informed EPA that it is now marketing R - 441A (the blend originally submitted as “HCR - 188C1”) under the trade name “HCR - 188C.” For each of the listing decisions finalized in this action, we are establishing the following use conditions after considering comments on the prop osed rule : (1) EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that these refrigerants be used only in new equipment designed specifically and clearl y identified for the refrigerant (i.e., none of these substitutes may

be used as a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment that is designed for other refrigerants). See Section V.B of this preamble (“New E quipment O nly ; N ot Intended for U se as a R etrofit A lternative”). (2) EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that these refrigerants be used only in refrigerators or freezers that meet all requirements listed in S upplement SA to UL 250 (household refrigeration end - use) or Supplement SB to UL 471 (retail food refrigeration end use). We clarify

that the intent of this use condition is to require compl iance with the provisions specificall y for use with flammable refrigerants found in those supplements , rather than requiring compliance with other material in UL 250 and UL 471 that is not specific to use with flammable refrigerants . See Section V.C (“Compliance with UL S tandards”). ( 3 ) EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for 57 - gram and 150 - gram charge size limitations for the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - uses, respectivel y . We are also clarifying that the charge size limitations apply to each refrigerant circuit in a refrigerator or freezer, not necessaril y the entire appliance. See Sections V.D (“Charge S ize*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

21 of 96 L imitation ( H ousehold Refrigeration)”) and V.E (“Charge S ize L imitation ( R etail F oo d Refrig eration)”). (4) EPA is finalizing the marking ( labeling ) requirements as proposed, as discussed in Section V.F (“Labeling”), with two minor exceptions discussed in Section VI (“What O ther C hanges I s EPA M aking in the F inal R ule? ”) . First , we are correcting the wording of the label located at the machine compartment ; second, we are clarifyingthe language of the requirement to more clearl y link each label with its wording and location. ( 5 ) EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement that the refrigerator or f reezer have red PMS #185 - marked pipes, hoses, or other devices through wh ich the refrigerant passes . We are narrowing the applicability of this requirement by

clarifying that the color must be present at all locations through which the refrigerant is servi ced , and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected (e.g., process tubes) , instead of all locations where the refrigerant passes. In addition, we are clarifying that the red co loring must be in place at all times and must be replaced if removed. See Section V.G (“Color - C oded H oses and P iping”). ( 6 ) Based on the comments received, EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement for unique fittings at service apertures. Instead we are providing this as a recommendation in the
“ Further Information” column of Appendix R. See Section V.H (“Unique F ittings”). (7) Based on the comments received, EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement prohibiting the sale of h ydrocarbon refrigerants in containers designed to contain less than 5 pounds (2. 3 kg) of refrigerant. See Section V.I (“Small C ontainers”). EPA is also making two other changes to the wording o f the use conditions and “Further In formation” provisions in Appendix R. First, we are clarifying that R - 502 is one of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

22 of 96 refrigerants for which propane is listed as a substitute in the retail food refrigeration end - use. Second, we are including in the “ F urther Information” column a cross - reference to relevant OSHA regulations. **IV. What I**  **s the Basis for EPA’s Final Action?** To determine whether these three substitutes present risks that are lower than or comparable to risks from other substitutes that are currentl y o r potentially available in the end - uses under consideration , we examined the criteria in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7), focusing in particular on the following areas of concern : impacts on stratospheric ozone and climate; volatile organic compound ( VOC ) e missions; flammability ; asph yxiation risks for consumers and end - users; and toxicity risks to workers, consumers, and the general population. In support of the proposed rule, in 2009 , EPA performed a risk screen anal ysis for each of the substitutes for the end - use proposed for listing: isobutane in household refrigeration (ICF, 2009a), propane in retail food refrigeration (ICF, 2009b), HCR - 188C in household refrigeration (ICF, 2009c), and HCR - 188C1 (R - 441A) in household refrigeration (ICF, 2009d). Indev eloping this final rule, EPA reviewed these risk screens and made minor changes for greater consistency and clarity , but made no substantive changes to the assumptions or to the quantitative risk calculations. (EPA did not revise the risk screen for HCR - 18 8C, since the manufacturer withdrew the application for that refrigerant , and EPA is not finalizing an acceptability determination for the refrigerant .) The 2009 risk screens and the 2011 revisions (I CF, 2011a ; I CF, 2011b; I CF, 2011c ) are included in the d ocket for this rulemaking. Based on the information provided in the risk screens, EPA has concluded that the overall environmental risk posed by each of the three substitutes is lower than or comparable to the environmental risks posed by other substitutes in the reviewed end - uses. With respect to public*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

23 of 96 health risks, EPA has concluded that without mitigation, the risks posed b y these refrigerants would be higher than other non - flammable refrigerants becaus e individuals may not be aware that their actions could potentially cause a fire, and existing equipment has not been designed specificall y to minimize flammability risks. Therefore, EPA is finalizing use conditions to ensure that the overall risks to human health and the environment posed b y these substitutes are lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed b y other substitutes in the same end - use. A. Environmental Impacts EPA has concluded that, overall, the environmental risk posed b y each of the three reviewed substitutes is lower than or comparable to the environmental risk posed by other substitutes in the reviewed end - uses. All three substitutes have zero ozone depletion potential (ODP) and very low global warming potential (GWP) compared to other refrigerants. Although the substitutes are VOCs, the emissions from the specific uses being found acceptable subject to use conditions would not significantl y affect local air quality. Thus the environmental risks associated with ODP, GWP, and VOC effe cts for each reviewed substitute are lower than or comparable to other acceptable substitutes. These risks are discussed below. A chemical’s ODP is the ratio of its impact on stratospheric ozone compared to the impact of an identical mass of CFC - 11. The ODP of CFC - 11 is defined as 1.0. Other CFCs and HCFCs have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 1.0 (WMO, 20 1 1 ) . The ODP of HCFC - 22 is 0.055 , and the ODP of R - 502 is 0.334. The three substitutes discussed in this rule have an ODP of zero, as do other common substitut es in the same end - uses, such as HFC - 134a, R - 404A, and R - 4 10 A . The GWP of a greenhouse gas (GHG) quantifies its potential integrated climate forcing relative to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) over a specified time horizon . The 100 - ye ar integrated GWPs of isobutane, propane, and R - 441A are estimated to be 8 (GE, 2008), 3 (Ben and Jerry ’s, 2008), and*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

24 of 96 less than 5 (A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2009), 10 respectively , relative to a value of 1.0 for CO 2 . These are significantl y lower than the 100 - ye ar integrated GWPs of the subst ances that they would be replacing: CFC - 12 (GWP = 10,890); HCFC - 22 (GWP = 1,810); and R - 502 (GWP = 4,660) (WMO, 2011 ) and are significantly lower than those of other acceptable refrigerants in these end uses (e.g., GWPs of HFC - 134a, R - 404A, and R - 410A are approximately 1 , 430, 3 , 920, and 2 , 090, respectivel y). The overall climate impacts from the use of these refrigerants are also dependent upon the energy use b y the appliances in which they are used , because the indirect climate impacts associated with electricity consumption ty

picall y exceed those from the refrigerants themselves over the full life cycle of refrigerant - containing products (ORNL, 1997) . A hydrocarbon appliance that is more energy- efficient than the appliance it replaces would result in GHG emission reductions beyond those attributable to the substitute refrigerant alone. Conversel y, the GHG benefits of a substitute refrigerant in a replacement hydrocarbon appliance would be offset if that appliance had lower energy effici ency than the appliance it replaces . EPA was unable to find an y detailed life - cycle anal ys is addressing GHG emissions associated with substituting traditional ODS refrigerants with h ydrocarbons . Information in the submissions indicates that energy efficien cy of these refrigerants is likely to be comparable to or higher than that of ODS refrigerants and of HFC refrigerants sometimes used (e.g., HFC - 134a) (Ben & Jerry ’s, 2008; A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2007, 2009; GE, 2008). In the 2010 Assessment Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel , UNEP ’ s Technology and Economic Assess ment Panel (TEAP) discusses the energy

efficiency

of h ydrocarbons compared to that of HFC - 134a: 10 The submission for HCR - 188C1, now known as R - 441A, reported that the GWP of the substitute is “negligible or essentially z ero.” Because the main components of R - 441A are the same as the main components of the HCR- 188C formulation originally submitted, the GWP of R - 441A is expected to be similar to that reported for the original formulation by A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. (2007).*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

25 of 96 When GWP of HFC - 134a is considered prohibitive in relation to HFC emissions (country regulation or compan y policy), h ydrocarbon refrigerants (isobutane and propane, i.e. HC 600a and HC - 290) or CO 2 (R - 744) are the current alternative solutions, presenting in most of the cases the same technical reliability and energy

performance as HFC - 134a. [p. 60] Hydrocarbons are regulated as VOCs under sections of the CAA that address development of State Implementation Plans to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground - level ozone, which is a respiratory irritant (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)). EPA’s 1994 risk screen document ( EPA, 1994) describes the potential emissions of VOCs from all substitutes for all end - uses in the refrigeration and air - conditioning sector as likel y to be insignificant relative to VOCs from all other sources (i.e., other industries , mobile sources, and biogenic sources ). Analy sis performed for this rulemaking indicates that in the extremely unlikely event that all appliances manufactured by each submitter i n these two end - uses were to leak their entire charge over the course of a year, the resulting increase in annual VOC emissions from each substitute as a percent of all annual VOC emissions in the U.S . w ould be negligible. 11 Therefore, the use of these hydrocarbons in the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - uses is sufficiently small that a switch from an ODS or from an HFC refrigerant would not have a noticeable impact on local air quality . International experts came to a similar conc lusion in Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IP CC/TEAP , 2005).

11 As a percent of annual VOC emissions in the U.S., this represents approximately 5x10 - 6 percent (for isobutane in the household food refrigeration end - use) (ICF, 2009a and ICF, 2011a) , 5x10 - 6 percent (for propane in the retail food refrigeration end - use) (ICF, 2009b and ICF, 2011b) , and 3x10 - 7 percent (for R - 441A in the household food refrigeration end - use) (ICF, 2009d and ICF, 2011c ).*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

26 of 96 Similarly , EPA expects that additional releases of hydrocarbons into the environment from use as refri gerant will have an insignificant impact on ecos ys tem risks. Because h ydrocarbons are volatile and break down quickly in the atmosphere into naturally - occurring compounds such as carbon dioxide, EPA would not expect there to be any significant amount of deposition that might adversel y affect aquatic or terrestrial ecos ys tems. B. Flammability Because they

are flammable, isobutane, propane, and R - 441A could pose a significant safety hazard for workers and consumers if handled incorrectl y. Isobutane, propane, and R - 441A have lower flammability

limits (LFLs) 12 of 18,000 ppm, 21,000 ppm, and 16,000 ppm, respectivel y. The ODS for which these refrigerants are substitutes

– CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 - and other substitutes available in this end - use are not flammabl e. When the concentration of a flammable refrigerant reaches or exceeds its 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 contro ls the motor of a compressor), an explosion or fire could occur . Flammability

risks are of particular concern because household refrigeration appliances and retail food refrigeration appliances in the United States traditionally have used refrigerants that are not flammable. Without mitigation, the risks posed by flammable refrigerants would be higher than those posed b y non - flammable refrigerants because individuals may not be aware that their actions could cause a fire, and existing appliances have not been designed specificall y to minimize flammability

risks. Therefore, in order for these substitutes to be used safel y, it is important to minimize the presence of potential ignition sources and to reduce the likelihood that the levels of these 12 LFL is the minimum concentration in air at which flame propagation occurs .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

27 of 96 refrigerants will reach their LFLs. Production facilities, and other facilities where large quantities of the refrigerant are stored, should have proper safety precautions in place to minimize the risk of explosion. EPA recommends that these facilities be equipped w ith proper ventilation sy stems to minimize the risks of explosion and be designed to reduce risks fro m possible ignition sources. To determine whether the three h ydrocarbon refrigerants would present flammability concern s for service and manufacture pe rso nnel 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 analy sis 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 LFL for that h ydrocarbon . However, since h ydrocarbon refrigerants are flammable , and manufacture personnel, service personnel, and consumers in the U.S. may not be widely

familiar with refrigeration appliances containing flammable refrigerants, use conditions are necessary to create awareness of the presence of a flammable refrigerant and ensure safe handling. For this reason , this final rule includes use conditions in order to ensure th at these substitutes present aggregate risks that are lower than or comparable to those of other substitutes that are currently or potentially

available. This final rule also lists recommendations such as proper ventilation and storage practices, and use o f appropriate tools and recovery equipment, to mitigate safety risks for manufacture and servicing personnel. C. Asphy xiation*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

28 of 96 In evaluating potential human health impacts of isobutane, propane, and R - 441A, EPA considered the risk of asphy xiation to worker s (store employees and technicians) and consumers. The Agency

evaluated a worst - case scenario that did not consider likely mitigating exposure conditions such as open doors or windows, fans, conditioned airflow, or infiltration between a door and its door frame. EPA calculated the maximum charge of each refrigerant that would result in a reduc tion of oxygen levels to 12 percent in air , which is the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) for h ypoxia (ICF, 1997) . Specifically , under the worst - case conditi ons evaluated, the charge sizes necessary

to reduce the ox ygen level in air to the 12 - percent NOAEL in the household refrigeration end - use would be 625 grams and 535 grams (for isobutane and R - 441A, respectivel y), which is much larger than the 5 7 - gram charge size limitation required in the use conditions in this rule (ICF, 2011a and 2011 c ) . Likewise, the charge size necessary to achieve the NOAEL in the retail food refrigeration end - use would be 904 grams for propane , which is six times greater th an the 150 - gram charge size limitations in this rule (I CF, 20 11 b ). This risk is lower than or comparable to that of other available substitutes in these end - uses. D. Toxicity EPA evaluated the toxicity impacts of the three refrigerants to workers and cons umers for the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - use s. The Agency estimated the maximum time - weighted average (TWA) 13 exposure s for the hydrocarbons under different exposure scenarios and compared them to relevant industry and governm ent exposure limits for each of the three hydrocarbons (including potential impurities in the substitutes). The risk screens,

13 Time - weighted average (TWA) = The average concentration of a s pecific substance in air over a specified time period

– e.g., during the course of an 8 - hour work day .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

29 of 96 provided in the docket, describe the toxicity impact assessments in more detail (I CF, 2009a; I CF, 2009b; IC F, 2009d ; I CF, 2011a, I CF, 2011b, ICF, 2011c ). To assess occupational exposure for the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - uses, EPA estimated the number of refrigerant releases during appliance manufacture and disposal and the refrigerant amounts released per event . For each refrigerant , EPA used those estimates to calculate the maximum 8 - hour TWA exposure , which we then compared to the corresponding workplace guidance level (WGL) . EPA found that occupational exposures to these hydrocarbons should not pose a toxicity threat in either end - use because the TWAs were well below the industry

and government exposure limits. To assess consumer and end - user exposure for the household refrigeration end - use, EPA modeled 15 - and 30 - minute TWAs for catastrophic refrigerant release in a consumer kitchen under a reasonable worst - case scenario. E ven under the very conservative modeling assumptions used, EPA found that exposures to an y of the three hydrocarbons woul d not pose a toxicity threat to end - use rs in the household refrigeration end - use because the TWAs were significantly lower than the NOAEL and/or acute exposure guideline level (AEGL) . To assess consumer and end - user exposure for the retail food refrigerat ion end - use, EPA estimated 15 - and 30 - minute TWAs as acute/short - term consumer exposures resulting from catastrophic leakage of refrigerant from retail food refrigerators and compared the TWAs to standard toxicity

limits. EPA concluded that none of the three h ydrocarbons posed a toxicity threat to consumers in the retail end - use because the TWAs were significantly lower than the NOAEL and/or AEGL. Finally , EPA assessed the exposure risk to the general population for the three hydrocarbons in their respecti ve end - uses. To do so, EPA estimated factory and on - site releases of each*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

30 of 96 hydrocarbon and compared them to each hydrocarbon’s reference concentration (RfC) . 14 In all cases , the modeled exposure concentrations were significantl y lower than the RfC , leading E PA to conclude that isobutane, propane, and R - 441A are unlikel y to pose a toxicity risk to the general population. These toxicity risks are lower than or comparable to those posed by the other acceptable substitutes in these end - uses. **V. What I**  **s EPA’s R**  **esp onse to**  **C omments on the May 2010 Notice of Proposed**  **Rulemaking?** In this section, EPA responds to comments on the May 10, 2010, NPRM. A. EPA’s A cceptability D etermination Comment: Ninety- nine commenters expressed unconditional support for EPA’s proposal to find isobutane and R - 441A acceptable ( subject to use conditions) in the household refrigeration end - use and to find propane acceptable ( subject to use conditions) in the retail food refrigeration end - use. Response: We appreciate the support for our pro posed action , and we are taking final action consistent with that proposal. Comment: One commenter observed that although hydrocarbon refrigerants provide some environmental benefit by reducing GHG emissions, they pose flammability risks that more than of fset that benefit . The commenter stated that the global warming impacts of HFC refrigerants are currentl y small due to their low emissions (except in the case of catastrophic leaks), and practices are in place to recover refrigerant and destro y foam at an appliance’s end - of - life. The commenter also observed that h ydrocarbon refrigerants could enter the refrigerant recovery /recycle chain

14 The RfC is a concentration designed to protect the general population against adverse systemic (i.e., non - cancer) health effects.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

31 of 96 during servicing or at the end - of - life, necessitating costly

upgrades to recycle/recovery equipment in order to mitigate p otential flammability risks. Response: EPA reviews substitutes according to regulatory criteria provided at 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7) and described above. EPA has evaluated the h ydrocarbon refrigerants against these criteria and has concluded that they present overall environmental and human health risks that are lower than or comparable to other acceptable substitutes in the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - uses . EPA agrees that flammability risks could be a concern for these refrigerants in these end - uses. But, for the two end - uses at issue in this rule , where charges are limited and there is a long history of safe use globally , EPA believes risks can be mitigat ed to ensure the substitutes can be used as safel y as other available substitutes . W e are establishing use conditions to ensure that these substitutes pose an overall risk to human health and the environment that is lower than or comparable to the overall risk posed b y other substitutes in the same end - uses. With respect to the comment regarding risks during servicing and at end - of - life, EPA agrees that flammability

could pose a concern for the servicing and disposal of appliances containing hydrocarbon re frigerants. However, the use conditions in this final rule address this potential risk. For example, the labeling requirements and the requirement for coloring of tubing will serve as notification to servicing or disposal personnel that an appliance contai ns a flammable refrigerant . Section V.L (below) also discusses recovery equipment. Based on comments received, EPA believes that recovery

equipment designed specifically for flammable refrigerants is not yet widely manufactured or available in the U.S., a lthough certain commenters observed that they have created their own equipment to meet this need in their own business practices.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

32 of 96 Comment: Another commenter provided detailed comments on EPA’s risk screen for the use of isobutane in the household refriger ation end - use and limited comments on EPA’s risk screen for the use of propane in the retail food refrigeration end - use. The commenter stated that EPA has underestimated the safety risks associated with the use of h ydrocarbon refrigerants. The comments cov ered the following: 1. A fault - tree anal ys is calculating the probability of failures that would lead to ignition of the refrigerant; 2. The results of an external leak test in a mockup kitchen to illustrate the consequences of an external leak; 3 . The res ults of an internal leak test and a deflagration/explosion test to illustrate the consequences of an internal leak; 4. An observation about a manufacturer’s major recall of certain models of isobutane refrigerators in 2009 as a result of safety incidents i n Asia and Europe; and 5. A statement of similar concerns about the use of propane in small commercial refrigeration sy stems. This section of the preamble summarizes these comments and EPA’s response. Commen t 1 : Fault tree analy sis. Comment: The commenter included a fault - tree analy sis (FTA) that assessed the probability of household refrigerator ignition events due to the random coincidence of ignition sources and internal refrigerant leaks. An FTA considers how likely different events are and how resistant a sy stem is to various faults. The commenter’s FTA anal yz ed several potential scenarios in which ignition events could take place in household refrigerators. The commenter’s FTA calculated that iso butane household refrigerators in the U.S. would experience : (a) 2.9 ignition events per ye ar at*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

33 of 96 full market penetration as a result of independent, random events, and (b) an additional 2.5 ignition events for every

10 million refrigerators that enter the market due to a specific coupled failure i n which the malfunction of the defrost heater is both the cause of the leak and the ignition source. The commenter concluded that EPA potentially underestimated the risk of ignition - related failures in residential refrigerators for internal leak events. De tails of the two calculations are presented below. (a) Failure scenarios based on independent, random events. The commenter’s FTA identified two events that, occurring simultaneousl y, could potentially lead to an ignition event : (1) an internal isobutane refrigerant leak and (2) the occurrence of an energy source with sufficient energy to cause ignition. The commenter’s FTA identified and calculated probabilities for the different way s in which each of these events could happen. To calculate the probabili ty of an internal leak event, the commenter made assumptions regarding: the number of refrigerator repairs due to joint leakage and evaporator corrosion that might be related to a leak; the number of refrigerator repairs annuall y (based on the estimated am ount of HFC - 134a currently sold for use in servicing); and a multiplier accounting for the number of leaking refrigerators that would be thrown away instead of repaired. Based on these assumptions, the commenter estimated that isobutane refrigerators would experience approximately

260,000 internal leak failures per year in the U.S. at full market penetration ( which the commenter estimated at approximately 150 million refrigerators) . To calculate the probability of an energy source with sufficient energy to cause ignition , the commenter’s FTA estimated the probability of sparks from internal switches and controls, the defrost heater, and static electricity , asserting that any of these sparks would have sufficient*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

34 of 96 energy to ignite a leak. The commenter’s FTA calculated the likelihood of an ignitio n source as 11.2 in 1,000,000. The commenter’s FTA integrated the above assumptions and estimates to calculate an expected 2.9 ignition events per year at U.S. full market penetration. (b) “Coupled leak failure” sce nario. The commenter asserted that in addition to the random, independent events assessed above, the defrost heater presents a risk of a coupled failure because an electric short to the evaporator coil can be the cause of both the refrigerant leak and the ignition event. The commenter took three factors into account to determine the total number of ignition events from this coupled failure: (1) the probability that the defrost heater will short circuit, (2) the probability that an arc from the defrost heate r will cause a refrigerant leak, and (3) the probability

that the refrigerant will be present in sufficient quantities to ignite (i.e., whether the concentration will be at the LFL or higher). The commenter estimated that for every 10 million household ref

rigerators using isobutane that are produced, there w ould be an estimated 2.5 failure events in which an electrical short to the evaporator coil causes both a refrigerant leak and an ignition over the lifetime of those units. The commenter clarified that this value is in addition to the ignition events calculated in the previous FTA, which would result from the coincidence of independent, random events . Response. While EPA believes that the commenter has overestimated failure probabilities, we agree with the commenter that the risks associated with the use of isobutane in household refrigerators are greater than zero. EPA believes, however, that these risks are sufficientl y small and should not preclude a determination that isobutane is acceptable for use subject to use conditions that are for the purpose of mitigating the potential risks.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

35 of 96 EPA’s interpretation of the risk of ignition - related failures in residential refrigerators for internal leak events is based on information presented in “ Risk A ssessment of F lammable R efrigerants for U se in H ome Appliances ” (A. D. Little, 1991). The A.D. Little report, available in the docket for this rulemaking, included an FTA in which leak rate calculations were based on historical leak rate data provided b y three refrigerator manufacturers. As explained in more detail below, EPA believes that many elements of the commenter’s FTA are undocumented, are at odds with the industry

data used in the A.D. Little report , and present internal analy tical inconsistencies. (a) Failure scenarios based on independent, random events. Regarding the failure scenarios based on independent, random events, we note that the commenter’s discussion of methodology , the equation used for the calculation, and the calculations in the commenter’s FTA were inconsistent with each other, making it difficult to evaluate what had been done. Based on the commenter’s discussion of methodology , EPA believes that the commenter’s FTA applied assumptions that are either undocumented or unsupported by industry data. One such assumption is particularl y problematic: the commenter's anal ysis appears to have considered all leaks as potential risks for ignition. However, in order for a leak to pose a potential risk for ignition, the refrigerant must be pres ent in amounts that meet or exceed the LFL. The ability of a refrigerant to accumulate and reach its LF L is a function of both the rate at which the leak occurs and the presence of enclosed spaces that can trap the refrigerant and allow it to build up. Nei ther of these conditions was accounted for in the commenter’s probability calculations. As previously

mentioned, the A.D. Little report calculated leak rates from historical leak rate data provided b y three refrigerator manufacturers. A.D. L ittle distinguished “catastrophic” leaks ( the loss of a significant portion of refrigerant charge over a few minutes ) from “slow” leaks ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

36 of 96 observing that only

catastrophic or “fast” leaks would allow refrigerant to accumulate to a level of concern. The report goes on to calculate the “average” risk that a leak is a fast leak as 0.1 percent and the “worst - case” risk that a leak is a fast leak as 1 percent. EPA believes that the commenter’s failure to distinguish “slow” from “fast” leaks causes the commenter’s analy s is to overestimate the risk of an ignitable leak by at least two orders of magnitude. Furthermore, today ’s rule finalizes use conditions that guard against the potential that refrigerant from a “fast” leak will be able to accumulate in amounts that reach the LFL , or that an ignition source would cause an ignition event in the case of a significant leak. The use conditions require an y household refrigerator using isobutane to be designed specifically for use with flammable refrigerant in a manner that complies with the UL250 Standard. UL250, Supplement SA, “Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating S ys tem,” is intended to protect against an ignition incident in the event of a refrigerant leak . Units that are in compliance with UL 250 (particularl y Supplement SA) have passed appropriate ignition or leakage tests as stipulated in the standard. Passing the leakage test (at SA 5.1.2.7 and SA 5.1.3.6) ensures that refrigerant concentrations in the event of a leak do not reach or exceed 75 percent of the LFL inside an y i nternal or external electrical component compartments. (b) “Coupled leak failure” scenario. EPA’s concerns about the independent variables underlying the coupled leak failure scenario are the same as those articulated above for randomized events. The commenter did not provide clear documentation or a rationale for how estimates were derived . EPA believes that the commenter overestimated the probability that a defrost heater would cause a leak and caus e ignition because the c alculation neglected to account for an important*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

37 of 96 factor: the probability

of a defros t cycle coinciding with the time period during which concentrations in the compartment reach the LFL . Even if a refrigerant is present in sufficient quantity (i.e., at LFL), it will not ignite if there is no ignition source. For example, i f the door to a c ompartment that contains refrigerant at LFL is opened before a new defrost cycle begins and the refrigerant dissipate s to concentrations below the LFL, then no ignition event will take place , when the next defrost heater cycle begins and an arc occurs . The commenter claimed that the defrost cycle is only

active 2 percent of the time (for three 10 - minute periods per day). Had the commenter incorporated this factor into the calculations, the number of coupled leak failures would be approximately 50 times lower, dropping from 2.5 per 10 million units to about 0.05 per 10 million units. Since this is the probability of a coupled leak failure over the lifetime of a unit, and the average lifetime of a unit is estimated to be a minimum of 10 years, thi s would correspond to at most 0.08 ignition events per ye ar at full market penetration (approximately 150 million refrigerators, according to the commenter) due to a coupled leak failure . We consider this a reasonable risk level . Moreover, use conditions i n this final rule should further decrease the likelihood of such an event occurring , and that these risks are sufficientl y small and should not preclude a determination that isobutane is acceptable for use subject to use conditions that are for the purpose of mitigating potential risks. Commen t 2: External leak test The commenter presented results from an experiment that mimicked a leak from an isobutane refrigerator using a bottom - freezer refrigerator located inside a controlled ambient chamber and perfor med test measurements of isobutane levels in a mockup kitchen. The commenter stated that the experiment followed the leak procedure in the UL250 standard, including the following setup:*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

38 of 96  A kitchen intended to closely resemble a typical U.S. kitchen;  A bott om - freezer refrigerator located inside a control ambient chamber;  A 57 - gram charge of isobutane; and  Eight calibrated Henze - Hauck concentration sensors near potential ignition sources . After running the test, the commenter stated that five sensors showed i sobutane concentrations exceeding the LFL for several minutes. The commenter used these results as the basis of an assertion that EPA underestimated the risks from external leaks. Response: To assess the commenter’s exp eriment fully , EPA would require values for the commenter’s test parameters and supporting documentation. Based on the information provided , however , we have the following responses. We note that the commenter ’s experiment was meant to simulate a worst - case scenario leak . Based on industry

data in the A.D. Little report, the annual probability of a catastrophic leak outside a given refrigerator is ty picall y 3.6 x 10 - 7 , with a worst - case probability of 9 .0 x 10 - 6 . The commenter did not provide the make and model of the refrigerator used, and did not describe whether it was designed specifically to use isobutane as a refrigerant. Since EPA is requiring an y isobutane refrigerator to be designed specificall y for use with flammable refrigerant and to comply

with UL 250, including Supplement SA for use with flammable refrigerants, results from a test for a refrigerator not designed to meet the requirements of Supplement SA would not reflect the risks associated with an isobutane refrigerator that is compliant with the use conditions in this fina l rule. Even if the refrigerator were specificall y designed for use with an isobutane refrigerant and fully compliant with all portions of the UL 250 Standard, EPA believes that the leaked refrigerant at the locations of the five sensors show ing isobutane concentrations at or exceeding the LF L is not likely to ignite for the reasons discussed below.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

39 of 96 The commenter’s experiment leaked an unrealistically large amount of refrigerant, causing slightly higher measurements for isobutane concentrations than could be expected in the actual event of a leak. As described in Section V.D of this preamble (Charge Size Limitation

– Household Refrigeration), the proposed and final rules limit the charge size for each sealed refrigerant s ys tem to 57 grams , with a use condit ion for compliance with the UL 250 Standard Supplement SA, which calls for a charge size that will not leak more than 50 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant with properties similar to isobutane . Thus, a leak of 57 grams , such as the one described in the commenter’s experiment, is not consistent with a possible leak from an isobutane refrigerator that is compliant with the use conditions in this final rule . The first of the five sensors that showed isobutane concentrations above the LFL registered a maximum level of 1.9% for approximately 0.6 minutes (36 seconds) . This was just barel y above the LFL of 1.8% and had a duration of less than a minute. The sensor would have measured a concentration at or above the LFL for less than 0.6 minutes, if at all, if th e test had leaked a realistic amount of refrigerant based on the use conditions in the proposed and final rules. The concentrations measured at the four other sensors likely still would have been higher than the LFL , even if a realistic amount of refriger ant had been leaked . However, EPA does not believe that there are likely ignition sources present at those locations, which are near the compressor relay , on the floor behind the refrigerator, on the floor just in front of the refrigerator, and on the floo r 2.5 meters in front of the refrigerator. If the refrigerator were designed in accordance with the UL 250 Standard as required by this rule, then there would be no ignition sources in either of the first two locations , or the refrigerator would be designe d in such a way*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

40 of 96 that the LFL would not be reached near an ignition source in those locations. 15 As for the last two sensors, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that these locations are a likel y source of sparks. While not impossible, we believe it is highly unlikel y that a major external leak would occur and at the same time, someone would light a match or cigarette in their kitchen and then drop it on the floor. We note that the LFL was not reached at the sensor located near a more likely spark so urce – 30 inches above the floor at an electrical outlet. In response to the commenter’s general observation that EPA’s risk screen may underestimate risks , EPA revisited the assumptions made in the end - use modeling for both isobutane and R 441 A in the ho usehold refrigeration end - use to identify opportunities for a more conservative anal ys is . The results of this analy sis are provided in a memo, “Additional end - use modeling for household refrigerators and freezers ” (ICF, 2011 d ), which is provided in the docket for this rulemaking. This exercise identified two parameters for which assumptions could be more conservative:  Leak amounts were increased to 57 grams (representing the entire allowable charge size) rather than 50 grams (for isobutane) and 40 grams (for R - 441A), which were the intended charge sizes submitted by the applicants. While a leak amount of 57 grams is greater than that allowed b y the UL 250 Standard, this additional anal ys is conservatively accounts for the possibility

of incorrect manufacturer testing of the product. ( We note that a refrigerator that leaks more than 50 grams of isobutane or R - 441A refrigerant would not be in

15 Under SA5.1 of the Standard, a leakage test is required to ensure that refrigerant concentrations measured near any internal or external electrical component cannot exceed 75% of the LFL at any point in time and, furthermore, cannot exceed 50% of the LFL for more than 5 minutes at a time. (SA5.1.2.7, SA5.1.3.6). For any locations in which the LFL exceeds these amounts, the product would need to pass an ignition test (SA5.2) and a temperature test (SA 5.3) to ensure that electrical and heating components will not ignite the sp ecific flammable refrigerant under consideration in order to comply with UL 250.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

41 of 96 compliance with UL 250, and therefore would be in violation of the use conditions of this rule.)  Stratification was m ore conservativel y modeled through the assumption that 95 percent of the leaked refrigerant mixes evenly into the bottom 0.2 meters (9 inches) of the room, rather than the bottom 0.4 meters as assumed in the risk screen. Using these more conservative ass umptions, EPA performed a dditional flammability and threshold anal ys is. EPA found that even with a higher leak amount and a greater degree of stratification, the LFL was not reached in the model for either refrigerant. Furthermore, it would take a 75 - gram leak in an 18 m 3 kitchen or a 57 - gram leak in a 13.8 m 3 kitchen to meet or exceed the LFL in the lower portion of the room for isobutane. Li kewise, i t would take a 59 - gram leak in an 18 m 3 kitchen or a 57 - gram leak in a 1 7 . 3 m 3 kitchen to meet or exceed th e LFL in the lower compartment of the room for R - 441A. It should be noted that a survey of kitchen sizes found the smallest kitchen volume to be 31 m 3 , with 99 percent of kitchens having a volume of at least 53 m 3 (Murray, 1997 as cited in IC F, 2009 a ; ICF, 2009 d ; I CF, 2011a; and ICF, 2011 c ). Thus the results of this more conservative and protective modeling do not indicate a significant cause for concern that would cause us to change our determination that isob utane and R - 441A are acceptable sub

ject to use conditions for use in the household refrigeration end - use . Depending on the mixing conditions, it is still possible that in certain locations at floor level, or in restricted areas such as the space between a refrigerator and a wall, the concentrations of isobutane or R - 441A could reach their LFLs for a few minutes, posing a threat in the presence of a spark. However, in the worst case, the annual probability of a “fast” external leak occurring and an ignition source being present simultaneously is approxi mately

5.0 x 10 - 7 , or 0.5 in a million) (A.D. Little , 1991) .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

42 of 96 Commen t 3 : Internal leak test and explosion/deflagration experiment The commenter provided a cursory description of an internal leak test that measured isobutane concentrations inside the freezer compartment. The commenter concluded that refrigerant concentrations inside the freezer compartment reached 3.2 percent, which exceeds the LFL of 1.8 percent. The commenter also described the results of a test to reproduce the deflagration/explosion whe n an internal leak is ignited. The commenter stated that it performed a leakage test according to UL250 on a U.S. market refrigerator with original components, including the defrost heater, in outdoor ambient conditions. The test leaked 57 grams of refrig erant and used an unidentified sparking source to simulate a faulty defrost heater connection in the freezer compartment. The result was a violent explosion that sent heav y objects, such as the freezer door, flying up to 48 feet high. The commenter argued that this demonstrates that 57 grams of isobutane would produce enough energy

to result in structural damage. Response: As was the case for the external leak test, the commenter provided neither the make and model of the refrigerator used, nor a statement regarding whether the refrigerator was designed specifically

to use isobutane. Since EPA is requiring all isobutane refrigerators to be designed specifically

for use with flammable refrigerant and to compl y with UL250, including Supplement SA for use of flammable refrigerants, results from a test for a non - compliant refrigerator would not reflect the risks associated with an isobutane refrigerator that is in compliance with the use conditions in this rule. As previously noted , Supplement SA is intended to protect against an ignition incident in the event of a refrigerant leak . Units that are in compliance with UL 250 (particularl y Supplement SA) have passed appropriate ignition or leakage tests as stipulated in the standard. Passing the leakage test (at SA 5.1.2.7 and SA 5.1.3.6)*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

43 of 96 ensures that refrigerant concentrations in the event of a leak do not reach 75 percent of the LFL inside food compartments. EPA also notes that the commenter ’s experiment was meant to simulate a worst - case scenario leak. Based on industry

data in the A.D. Little report, the annual probability of a fire or explosion inside a given refrigerator is 2.7 x 10 - 13 on average, with a worst - case probability of 7.0 x 10 - 12 . This latter value corresponds to roughl y 0.001 ignition events per year (or 1 ignition event every 1,000 years) at full market penetration (approximately 150 million refrigerators, according to the commenter) under a worst - case scenario . We consider this a reasonable risk level. Again, we note that the use conditions in th is final rule should further decrease the likelihood of such an event occurring , and that these risks are small enough not to preclude a determination that isobutane is acceptable for use subject to the use conditions required by this final rule. Commen t 4 : Recall of isobutane refrigerators. The commenter described a major recall of certain models of isobutane refrigerators . In 2009 a major consumer refrigerator manufacturer announced a recall of isobutane refrigerators as a result of safety incidents that occurred in Asia and Europe. These incidents occurred despite the fact that these units were specificall y designed to operate with isobutane, and were designed to eliminate potential ignition sources. The electrical insulation in the defrost mechanism in these units carbonized, leading to partial short - circuiting and sparking. The sparking corroded the adjacent tubing , which resulted in a leak of hydrocarbon refrigerant. Isobutane concentrations accumulated enough to exceed the LFL in the closed refrigerat or unit. During the next defrost cycle, the faulty

electrical circuit resulted in ignition of the refrigerant and an explosion. Response: The recall discussed in this comment occurred in October 2009 and involved approximately

400,000 refrigerators in South Korea and Europe that were manufactured between*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

44 of 96 March 2005 and June 2006. According to the manufacturer, the recall was triggered b y an October 29, 2009, explosion of an isobutane refrigerator in Gyeonggi, South Korea. Press accounts also discuss a smal l number of related incidents in the United Kingdom and Germany between 2006 and 2009. Addressing the problem under the recall involved home visits to install a safety device to prevent the defrost heater from overheating. EPA notes that this final rule requires all isobutane refrigerators to comply with the provisions of UL 250. These provisions include leakage, ignition, and temperature tests , as well as an accelerated aging test of heater terminal seals and an insulation resistance test of all defrost h eaters. These tests are not included in the standards established by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) that would have been applicable to the appliances under recall. EPA also notes that more than 400 million hydrocarbon refrigerator uni ts are in use worldwide; in China alone, 75 percent of new domestic refrigerators/freezers use isobutane. R efrigerator ignition incidents resulting from leaked isobutane appear to be rare considering the widespread use of h ydrocarbon refrigerators worldwid e. Commen t 5 : Use of propane in small commercial refrigeration s ys tems. The commenter includes a brief observation that the use of propane in small commercial refrigeration s ys tems poses risks similar to use of isobutane in residential refrigerators. The commenter also argues that larger h ydrocarbon charges pose a higher risk of ignition events, and that small commercial refrigeration s ys tems are known to have much higher leakage frequencies and failure rates than residential sy stems. Response: As discussed above, EPA performed a risk screen on the use of propane in small commercial refrigeration sy stems (ICF, 2009b , revised as IC F, 2011b ), which is available in the*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

45 of 96 docket for this rulemaking. The risk screen indicates that propane’s LFL is not reac hed in the retail food refrigeration end - use where the charge size does not exceed that established by the use conditions . As described in the risk screen, under a worst - case (catastrophic) release scenario the maximum instantaneous concentration of propan e in the lowest stratum of the room would be approximately

66 percent of the LFL and the concentration in the upper part of the room would be lower. Further, the SNAP application for this end - use pointed out that no catastrophic (“fast”) leaks had been rep orted from among the 270,000 hydrocarbon refrigerators in operation belonging to the submitter . The commenter did not provide information to refute EPA’s risk screen for retail food refrigeration. EPA’s f

lammability assessment indicate s that the risk of e xplosio n is extremely small in this end - use. B. New E quipment O nly ; N ot Intended for U se as a R etrofit A lternative EPA received ten comments on its proposed requirement that hydrocarbon refrigerants “be used only in new equipment designed specificall y and clearly identified for the refrigerant (i.e., none of these substitutes may be used as a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment).” Nine of the commenters supported restricting the use of hydrocarbon refri gerants to new equipment onl y. Comment: One commenter requested that retrofitting old household refrigerators and freezers and retail food refrigerators (stand - alone equipment only) be allowed. The commenter suggest ed that safety concerns could be alleviated b y allowing retrofitting onl y b y personnel who are trained to handle flammable refrigerants. Response: Under the SNAP program, an application for SNAP approval specifies whether the proposed refrigerant use is for new equipment, retrofitted equipment, or both. None of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

46 of 96 submiss ions applied for use in retrofitted equipment. The Agency did not conduct a risk anal ys is for use of the substitutes in retrofitted equipment, nor did any of the comments provide such an anal ys is. Therefore, EPA is not addressing such use at this time. EP A would consider whether to find hydrocarbon refrigerants acceptable for use in retrofitted equipment in the future if sufficient evidence , including a risk assessment , is provided and shows that such use will present risks to human health and the environm ent that are lower than or comparable to risks from other available substitutes. C. Compliance with UL Standards EPA received ten sets of comments on its proposed requirement that the h ydrocarbon refrigerants be used only

in refrigerators or freezers that meet all requirements listed in the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for Household Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 250 (for the household refrigeration end - use) 16 and the UL Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 471 (for the retail f ood refrigeration end - use). 17 Most commenters supported adherence to applicable UL standards, although some offered the following additional comments. Comment: One commenter recommended that a final rule be contingent upon the existence and acceptance of a comprehensive industry - wide safety standard. The commenter also suggested that EPA could add other standards to the list of references addressing the safety of h ydrocarbon refrigerants. The commenter referred to ANSI Standard Z21.24, 18 AS H RAE Standard 15, 19 UL

16 EP A is referencing Supplement SA (“Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System”) from UL Standard 250, “Househo ld Refrigerators and Freezers,” 10 th edition. 17 EP A is referencing the UL Standard 471, 9 th edition Supplement SB; “Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers 18 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.24: Connectors for Gas Appliances . 19 ASHRAE S tandard 15 - 2010: Safety Standard for Refrigeration Systems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

47 of 96 Standard 21, 20 EN 378, 21 IS O - 5149, 22 the IO R Safety Code of Practice for Refrigerating S ys tems Utilising A2 & A3 Refrigerants, 23 and AS/NZS 1677. 24 Response: It is unclear what was intended b y either comment. Regarding the first comment, EPA notes that the ULstandards are in fact industry- wide safety standards. ULhas tested equipment for flammability risk in both household and retail food refrigeration. ULalso has developed acceptable safety standards including requirements for construction, for marking, and for leakage, ignition, and temperature tests , as well as an accelerated aging test of heater terminal seals and an insulation resistance test of all defrost heaters. With respect to the second comment, it is unclear whether the commenter is suggestin g that the other standards be imposed as use conditions, whether they should be included in the “Further In formation” column of the regulations, or whether they should simply

be described in this preamble. T he commenter provided no reasoning as to why the listed standard s should be included either as use conditions or in the “ Further Information” column of the regulation , and we are not aware that these standards provide any additional protections that are not provided by this rule . EPA believes that the us e conditions established in this final rule will ensure that these substitutes will present risks that are lower than or comparable to the risks from other available alternatives. D. Charge S ize L imitation ( H ousehold R efrigeration)

20 UL 21: Standard for LP - Gas Hose. 21 EN 378: Refrigerating systems and heat pumps - Safety and environmental requirements . Prepared by European Committee for Standardization/Technical Committee CEN/TC 182 (Refrigerating systems, safety and environmental requirements). 22 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5149: Mechanical refrigerating systems used for cooling and heating -- Safety requirements. 23 IOR (Institute of Refrigeration) : S afety code of practice for refrigerating systems utilising A2 and A3 refrigerants 24 The Joint Australian/New Zealand ASNZS Standard 1677: Addresses safety, design, construction, installation, testing, inspection, operation and maintenance of refrigeration sy stems.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

48 of 96 EPA received ten comme nts on its proposed charge size limitation of 57 grams (2.0 ounces) for the household refrigeration end - use . Comment: Five commenters recommended a limit of 150 grams (5.3 ounces) to correspond to standards established b y the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 60335 - 2 - 24) , including two non - governmental organizations, a manufacturer of refrigerator compressors, and two manufacturers of household refrig erators and freezers . One of these commenters , an environmental organization, observed that over 400 million refrigerators using propane and isobutane refrigerants are in use worldwide and that they generally are certified to the 150 - gram international saf

ety standard. The commenter stated that EPA has not provided a justification for a 57 - gram charge size limit. One commenter , a manufacturer of household refrigerators and freezers, stated that the 57 - gram charge size limit in some cases would reduce the e fficiency of the appliance and raise the indirect GHG emissions associated with the product’s energy use. Two commenters , a manufacturer of household refrigerators and freezers and an environmental organization, observed that the UL250 standard could chan ge in the future and recommended that EPA should modify its charge size limitation to harmonize with UL 250 as it changes over time. Three of the commenters supported the 57 - gram limitation, including a manufacturer of household refrigerators and freezers that submitted to the SNAP program for hydrocarbon refrigerant in this end use; a manufacturer of commercial refrigerators and freezers that submitted to the SNAP program for hydrocarbon refrigerant in both household and commercial refrigerators and freez ers; and a manufacturer of commercial refrigerators and freezers. Response: EPA agrees with the comments supporting the proposed requirement that the charge size not exceed 57 grams for household refrigeration . UL 250 allows a maximum leak*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

49 of 96 amount of 50 grams (1. 8 ounces), and the submitter used procedures outlined in the UL250 leakage test to conclude that up to 7 grams of additional refrigerant charge could be solubilized in the oil (and assumed not to leak or immediatel y vaporize with the refrigerant in the event of a leak). This information was reflected in EPA’s risk screen for isobutane, which modeled a maximum refrigerant release of 50 grams (ICF, 2009a and ICF, 2011a). It is true that hundreds of million s of refrigerators and freezers using propane and isobutane refrigerants in other countries are certified to the IEC 60335 - 2 - 24 standard, which allows for a charge of h ydrocarbon refrigerant up to 150 g. However, available evidence suggests that most of these appliances actuall y have charges that are closer to 57 g than to 150 g. For comparison , a ty pical U.S. household refrigerator using HFC - 134a ha s a charge of roughl y 140 g, 25 and a charge of isobutane providing comparable cooling would be 40 to 50% of the charge of HFC - 134a, 26 or 56 to 70 g. It is EPA’s understanding that most European household refrigerators are smaller than the ty pical U.S. household refrigerator and that they use less charge; thus, we would expect that European household refrigerator s have charge sizes less than 70 g. The commenter’s own website states, “[T]oday's hydrocarbon refrigerators, with hermeticall y sealed compressor sy stems, use between 30 to 70 grams of refrigerant, depending on the size of the refrigerator.” 27 Thus, the s afety record of hydrocarbon refrigerators and freezers in Europe appears to reflect experience primarily

with charge sizes much smaller than 150 g. While EPA could assess various charge sizes on a theoretical basis , we do not have the resources to perform product testing and we rely primarily on industry , national safety standard organizations, and non - governmental organizations to conduct tests on appliances. UL has tested 25 A. D. Little, 2002. 26 ACRIB, 2001. 27 Greenpeace, 1997.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

50 of 96 household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator s and freezers for safety , especially with respect to flammability concerns, and the U.S. insurance industry and commercial sector rel y on the results of those tests. Testing b y manufacturers and UL addresses flammability in the manufa cturing process as well as how the product functions with different charge sizes. UL developed the 50 - gram allowable leak limit as the result of testing during development of the UL 250 standard for household refrigerators and freezers . The 50 - gram allowab le leak limit for household refrigerators in UL250 differs from the 150 - gram allowable leak limit for commercial refrigerators and freezers in UL471 due to factors such as the difference in the room sizes modeled for household versus retail appliances. T herefore, building on the ULallowance of a 50 - gram allowable leak limit and the tests performed by the submitter, we concluded that the maximum charge size should be 57 grams for the household refrigeration end - use. EPA did not receive specific information concerning the potential energy efficiency

effects of limiting the charge size to 57 g or less. Thus , we are not able to judge the technical merits of the commenter's statement. EPA does not have sufficient information supported by safety t esting data at this time from other co mmenters, industry , U.S. national safety organizations, or non - governmental organizations to support a charge size limit different from one based on UL 250 , such as the 150 - gram limit in IEC 60335 - 2 - 24 . EPA understands that the limit in UL250 may change in the future. If that occurs, and if the appropriate safety testing data is submitted to EPA supporting safe use of a larger charge, we w ould consider modifying the use conditions at a future date. We acknowledge that a larger charge size may improve the energy

efficiency

of an appliance and simplify

its construction. However , based on the anal ys es available at this time, we do not have sufficient information to demonstrate that a larger charge size would not creat e an*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

51 of 96 unacceptable level of risk as compared to other available substitutes in the household refrigeration end - use . As noted above , EPA could modify the use conditions in the future if sufficient data were submitted to support safe use of a larger charge si ze. Comment: One commenter requested a more precise definition of “charge,” recognizing that the exact value of the charge depends on the accuracy of the charging equipment. Response: EPA regulations do not provide an accuracy specification or interpret ation for “charge” or “charge size.” EPA believes that such a regulatory definition is not necessary for purposes of this use condition . EPA believes that the wording in the use condition (“the quantity of the substitute refrigerant”) provides sufficient guidance and that manufacturers and service technicians have the proper instrumentation and training to judge the quantity of refrigerant being charged to an appliance. Comment: One commenter encouraged EPA to clarify or provide a test procedure for how manufacturers should measure the potential solubility of isobutane in the oil. Response: Providing such a test procedure is beyond the scope of this final rule . The use conditions reflect the assumption that 7 grams of a 57 - gram charge could be solubilized in the refrigerant oil while still allowing compliance with UL 250. The SNAP submittal for isobutane in the household refrigeration end - use contains information on the solubility of isobutane with refrigerant oils (GE, 2008). We ty picall y defer to the technical standard - setting agency on this ty pe of issue unless there is convincing evidence disputing such a calculation . Moreover, we note that manufacturers that choose to use isobutane are not obligated to measure its potential solubility in oil for purposes of compl yi ng with the use conditions , since any charge below 50 grams would be in compliance with UL 250 and the charge size limitations of this rule . Thus we see no reason to establish a test procedure for performing such an anal ys is.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

52 of 96 Comment: Two commenters observed that an appliance in the household refrigeration end - use might incorporate more than one sealed s ys tem and requested that the charge size limitation apply to each sealed s ys tem in an applianc e, not to the entire appliance. Response: EPA agrees and is clarifying that the 57 - gram charge size limit applies to each sealed s ys tem. 28 A household refrigeration appliance may incorporate multiple sealed s ys tems. Having multiple sealed sy stems is less of a concern than hav ing a single s ystem with the same combined ch arg e since the probability of two sealed sy stems leaking simultaneously is very low. In addition, hermeticall y sealed s ys tems are less likely to leak, presenting a lower probability of fire or explosion. Hermeti cally sealed s ys tems provide an increased level of safety in normal use. E. Charge S ize L imitation ( R etail F ood R efrigeration) EPA received seven sets of comments on its proposed charge size limitation of 150 grams (5.3 ounces) for the retail food refrigeration end - use . Six commenters supported the 150 - gram limitation, although some offered additional comments. Comment: One commenter recommended increasing the limit to 170 grams for three reasons: first, that EPA’s 150 - gram limit was calculated ba sed on a small European - sized kitchen and reflected a 20 - percent reduction from the LFL; second, that the proposed limit was based on domestic refrigerator standards and misapplied to commercial applications; and third, that the UL standard reflects 150 gr ams of leakage and 20 grams that remains in the oil and does not leak.

28 A “sealed system” is an independently operated refrigeration system, including a compressor, evaporator, condenser, metering device, and refrigerant not shared for other purposes. For example, a refrigerator- freezer might employ one sealed system to chill food in the refrigerator section and a second sealed system to keep food frozen in the freezer compartment. “Appliance” is d efined at 40 CFR 82.1 5 2 as “ any device which contains and uses a refrigerant and which is used for household or commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator, chiller, or freezer. ” Thus a refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrigerato r and freezer, for example, may consist of two appliances provided that the refrigerant in the first appliance ( i.e. , the first compressor, condenser, evaporator, and metering device) does not mix with the refrigerant in the second appliance (e.g., the sec ond compressor, condenser, evaporator, and metering device).*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

53 of 96 Response: EPA is finalizing the 150 - gram charge size limit as proposed for this end - use. This limit is more conservative than the UL 471 standard , which reflects a leak amount of 150 grams (i.e., not counting refrigerant solubilized in oil) . Unlike the charge limit for the household refrigeration end - use, the charge limit for the retail food refrigeration end - use does not reflect an additional amount of refrigerant assumed to be solubil ized in the oil because SNAP submitters did not include test data to support this information for propane . UL 471 limits the amount of refrigerant leaked to 150 gram s, based on testing performed during the development of the UL 471 standard. The commenter provided no test data showing that 20 grams (or some alternative amount) would be captured in the oil if the UL 471 standard were applied. Nor was there evidence that the leak assumptions for the household refrigeration end - use (7 of 57 grams solubilized) might appl y proportionatel y to other equipment or other refrigerants . Therefore, because EPA does not have a sufficient anal yt ic basis to derive a 170 - gram charge size limit, EPA has no basis to support a change to the 150 - gram c harge size limit we proposed for this end - use. Comment: Two commenters also observed that the IEC standards may be revised upward in the future, and that EPA’s limit should reflect such changes. Response: The IEC charge size limit has not yet increased and EPA cannot anticipate the timing or extent of such an increase . Further, EPA has not received an y information showing that a larger charge size would ensure that propane woul d present risks in this end - use that are lower than or comparable to risks from other potential ly available substitutes . I f the IEC or UL standards are revised in the future or if other information becomes available that would support a change in charge size, an interested party could petition EPA to revise this aspect of the use condition .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

54 of 96 Comment : Another commenter s tated that appliances manufactured for export should be allowed to have a larger charge size corresponding to the charge size requirements that appl y at the point of installation. The commenter claims that prohibiting a larger charge s ize for export would be a disadvantage for U.S. companies selling appliances overseas. Response: Under s ection 612 of the Clean Air Act, the SNAP program is applicable to any person introducing a substitute into interstate commerce. Interstate commerce i s defined in 40 CFR 82.104(n) as : the distribution or transportation of an y 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 an y product in more than one state, territory , possession or the District of Columbia. The entry points for which the 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. This definition applies to any appliances produced in the U.S., including appliances that wil l be exported . Therefore EPA cannot support the comment to apply different use conditions based on where an appliance is being exported . Comment: One commenter observed that because an appliance might have two or more independent refrigeration sy stems, EP A’s charge size limitation should apply to each refrigeration sy stem in an appliance and not to each appliance. Response: EPA received a similar comment with respect to the household refrigeration end use, as described in Section V. D above. As was the cas e for the household refrigeration end - use, EPA agrees that the charge size limitation for the retail food refrigeration end - use should appl y to each sealed s ys tem in an appliance. EPA is modifyingthe wording of the use condition to reflect this clarificat ion.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

55 of 96 F. Labeling EPA received 11 sets of comments on its proposal to require that “Danger” and “Caution” labels be permanentl y attached at specified locations on household and retail appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants. The proposed wording was identical to that of UL 250 Supplement SA (household refrigeration) and UL 471 Supplement SB (retail food refrigeration), except that EPA proposed that the lettering be 1⁄4 inch (6.4 mm) rather than the 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) specified in the ULstandards. Seven comm enters expressed support for the proposed labeling use conditions, including the lettering size. Comment: Two commenters stated that EPA and ULshould require the same print color and size. Another commenter supported the proposal except for the language reflecting clause (a) in UL471 (retail food refrigeration) for evaporators that can be contacted b y a consumer; the comment stated that evaporator s are never accessible to a customer in units that are “cold wall design.” Finall y, one commenter sp ecifically opposed use of the words “Danger” and “Caution . ” The commenter stated that equipment is safe if it meets UL standards, that the words would scare consumers, and that service technicians k now what they

are dealing with. Response: EPA is finalizi ng the labeling use condition as proposed (with the exception of a minor technical correction to the wording of one of the labels, described in Section VI below). EPA believes that notification is necessary to alert technicians and personnel who dispose of or recycle appliances that a refrigerant has the potential to ignite if a sparking source is nearb y. This is particularl y true during the years these products are first introduced into the market because most technicians in the U.S., as well as those invo lved in the disposal chain, are not yet familiar with flammable refrigerants.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

56 of 96 EPA consults with UL and other national safety standards as often as possible, recognizing that the organizations differ in functions and goals. With the exception of the lettering size, EPA is adopting label wording and requirements that are identical to those in the UL 250 and UL 471 standards. The UL standards include a requirement to label evaporators in the retail end - use, and EPA is mirrorin g that requirement, noting that e ven if a customer does not have access to the labeled area, service technicians with such access still need to be made aware that a flammable refrigerant is present. Regarding the lettering size, EPA continues to believe that it would be difficult to see warning labels with the 1/8 - inch lettering stipulated b y UL 250 and UL 471 . Three commenters specificall y endorsed the 1⁄4 - inch minimum height proposed, and EPA is finalizing that requirement, making it easier for technicians , consumers, retail store - owners, and emergency first responders to see the warning labels. G. Color - C oded H oses and P iping EPA received 11 sets of comments on its proposed requirement that an appliance containing hydrocarbon refrigerants have red Pantone Matching S ys tem (PMS) #185 - marked pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant passes to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. The color would be required at all service ports and where service puncturing or otherw ise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere would be expected to occur, and would extend a minimum of 1 inch in both directions from such locations. The proposed rule observed that no industry standard exists for color - coded hose s or pipe for flammable refrigerants, and sought comment on potential development of such a standard.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

57 of 96 Three commenters supported the proposed requirement. One of the supporting commenters stated that EPA’s use condition would also suffice in lieu of an in dustry standard. Other commenters opposed various aspects of the color - coding requirement. Comment: One commenter stated that mandatory color - coding would impose a burdensome additional cost and is not a requirement under international standards. A second commenter stated that color - coding would be superfluous in light of the proposed labeling requirement. A third commenter stated that leak testing requirements obviate the need for color - coding. A fourth commenter identified several concerns: that hose mat erials could be potentially incompatible with the paint used, that the marking could be obscured by ice or insulation, and that paint on heat exchange surfaces could change the thermal resistance and water retention properties of the heat exchanger, affect ing performance. Other commenters recommended a more precise interpretation of the requirement to ensure that color - coding need only be provided where beneficial and not in locations where s ys tem performance could be hindered. One commenter observed that coloring all tubing would be costl y and that locations should be selected that do not present problems for sealing of valves or for operational efficiency . Another commenter suggested that since UL 471 already requires labels near the compressor, coloring would onl y be necessary at discharge and charge locations . The commenter further state d that self - contained units with one compressor only need markings at two locations

– at the filling tube and after the filter dryer (in the flow direction)

– because such units only use one refrigerant and present no risk of mixing . Several commenters observed that an equally effective and less costly

option for some manufacturers might be to use a colored sleeve or cap that must be forcibly removed in order to*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

58 of 96 access the service tube. If a manufacturer removed the sleeve or cap during service, a similar replacement would be required. Response: EPA is finalizing a requirement to use red PMS #185 coloring on hoses and tubing. This is the same color specified in AHRI Gu ideline N - 2008, “ Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors , ” to identify containers of flammable refrigerant, such as propane, isobutane, and R - 441A (AHRI, 2008) . The purpose of the colored hoses and tubing in this case is to enable service technicians to identify the use of a flammable refrigerant and to take additional precautions (e.g., reducing the use of sparking equipment) as appropriate to avert accidents, and particularl y in the event that labels are no longer legible . The air - conditioning and refrigeration industry currentl y uses distinguishing colors to identify different refrigerants. Li kewise, distinguishing coloring is used elsewhere to indicate an unusual and potentially dangerous situation, such as the use of orange - insulated wires in hy brid electric vehicles. Inthe U.S., household and retail appliances contain various refrigerants and it is not alway s clear what type of refrigerant an appliance uses . Since red coloring is understood to represent “hot,” “stop,” or “danger,” red coloring will provide technicians, consumers, and emergency responders with an unambiguous signal that a potential hazard is present. The labeling requirement discussed in Section V. F will complement the color - coding requirement by providing a more precise warning of the potential hazards and necessary precautions. Further, it is possible that labels, particularly those on the outside of the appliance, may

fall off or become illegible over time; adding red coloring on tubing inside the appliance provides additional assurance that technicians will be aware that a flammable refrigerant is present.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

59 of 96 In response to concerns about the location of the color - coding, EPA is modifying the language for this use condition to reflect its intent more precisely . Instead of requiring P MS #185 coloration at all locations “through which the refrigerant passes,” this final rule requires coloration at locations “through which the refrigerant is serviced,” as well as areas where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the re frigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected. EPA is also clarifying the location and extent of the coloring on the hose or process tube (if one exists). 29 This does not mean that the entire hose or process tube must be colored. Rather, for process tubes the tube must be colored for at least one inch with the red mark to extend from the compressor. T his way , if the process tube is cut for service, the red marking still remains after the tube is welded back together. If further servicing w ould leave the colored portion of the process tube less than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) long, a new process tube would be required, with the red marking as described above. For other locations

– for example, if a service port or refrigerant access valve is a dded to the s ys tem 30
- the red mark must extend at least 1 inch in all directions from the port or valve. To clarify that the red coloring must alway s be present (not just applied initially at installation), we are providing more specificity in the languag e of the use condition than proposed . We are changing “must be applied” to “must be present” to correct any misperceptions that once the coloring is initially placed (“applied”) at a location, it need not be replaced if damaged or removed. The word “present” conveys that the red coloring must alway s be at the specified location. 29 A process tube extends from the compressor and is used to add or remove refrigerant. After refrigerant is added or removed, t he process tube is usually pinched to stop refrigerant flow and then could be soldered to provide a long - lasting seal. The tube is used as an access point for service technicians and does not serve any refrigerant - flow or heat transfer purposes. 30 The UL Standards referenced in this rule do not allow the inclusion of servi ce ports in finished products u s ing flammable refrigerants; however, the coloring use condition would still apply if a service port or access valve were added after the product was sold.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

60 of 96 EPA does not believe that this requirement will impose a burdensome additional cost. The only commenter to raise this point did not provide any information about what such costs mi ght be and wh y the commenter thought they would be burdensome . In this preamble we are clarifying one aspect of flexibility

that could mitigate potential cost concerns. Specifically , EPA agrees with the commenters’ observation that a colored sleeve or cap could be equall y effective and may offer a less costly

option for some manufacturers. The proposed rule specified the ty pe, location, and dimensions of the coloration but did not specify the phy sical manner in which the tube should be colored. EPA believes that the use of a sleeve or cap is consistent with this use condition as long as the requirements of the use condition (use of Pantone #185, location, and dimension) are met. However, in order to remain in compliance with the use condition, a technician who removes a sleeve during servicing is required to replace that sleeve on the serviced tube with another . Allowing the use of a sleeve instead of paint will a l so help alleviate the concern expressed b y one commenter over the potential incompatibility of r ed paint with hose materials. EPA recognizes that labeling is another way to provide warning of the presence of a flammable refrigerant, and

– as discussed in Section V. F above - is finalizing a labeling requirement. However, since over time labels can co me off or become illegible, labeling should not be the sole means of alerting users and service technicians of the presence of a flammable refrigerant. Comment: One commenter supported the proposed color - coding requirement but pointed out that the American Academy of Ophthalmology

and the C enters for D isease C ontrol and Prevention report that 8 percent of American males are color - blind, primarily in the colors green and red , making the need for labels even more important .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

61 of 96 Response: The Agency recognizes that there is a color - blind population. This is one reason to use both labeling and coloring to signal that a flammable refrigerant is being used. H. Unique F ittings EPA received 13 sets of comments on its proposed requirement that appliances using isobutane o r R - 441A in household refrigeration and propane in retail food refrigeration end - uses have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non flammable refrigerant. The proposed rule defined “differ” to mean that either the diameter must differ b y at least 1/16 inch or the thread direction must be reversed (i.e., right - handed vs. left handed). The proposed rule specified that these different fittings must be permanentl y affixed to the unit and may

not be accessed with an adaptor until the end - of - life of the unit. Comments: Twelve commenters opposed the proposed requirement for various combinations of the following reasons: adding fittings at the time of manufacture is not appropriate for certain appliance types; additional fittings presents an increased leak risk; the requirement could be easily circ umvented; the risk of cross - contamination is overstated; international standards do not require unique fittings ; and the requirement would be inconsistent with ULstandards. One commenter , while neither supporting nor opposing the proposal, stated that if unique fittings are installed they should require the use of special tools to dissuade unauthorized personnel from opening the fittings. Response: EPA is persuaded by the comments opposing a use condition to require unique fittings. The Agency

is removing the requirement for unique fittings from the list of use conditions and is instead providing a recommendation for unique fittings in the “Further In formation” column of Appendix R . The following paragraphs describe the comments and EPA’s response in more detail.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

62 of 96 Comments: Most commenters interpreted the language of the proposed requirement to mean that all appliances subject to this rule must be manufactured with unique fittings, even appliances that would not require servicing and thus would otherwise no t need fittings . They observed that household and retail appliances, whether they use hydrocarbons or another ty pe of refrigerant, ty picall y are hermeticall y sealed and are manufactured without maintenance fittings or service valves. They

pointed out that any

service port with a mechanical connection (such as a lock ring) presents a leak risk and that requiring additional service ports for the purpose of installing unique fittings would add to that risk. One commenter also observed that equipment is highly sensitive to charge size and an y leak c ould cause malfunction or failure. (The commenter stated that in its past experience, three - fourths of service calls were related to service ports. ) One commenter observed that the presence of service ports could create incentives for untrained technicians to attempt servicing. Another commenter pointed out that UL 250 and UL 471 prohibit refrigerators or freezers that use a flammable refrigerant from employing quick - connect fittings, flare fittings, compression fittin gs, or packed stem valves. Response: EPA agrees with statements that a service valve installed at the point of manufacture could increase the likelihood of leaks for these types of appliances . We recognize from the comments that the proposed requirement w as worded in an overl y broad manner. We intended the requirement to apply onl y in cases where a service port or other connection is installed subsequent to manufacture. EPA is aware that the UL250 and UL 471 standards forbid such ports at the time of manu facture on units using flammable refrigerants. EPA recognizes that service ports (whether with standard or unique fittings) are not normally used in household refrigerators or stand - alone retail food refrigerators and freezers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

63 of 96 However, CAA 608(b)(2) requires all small appliances containing ODS refrigerants to be equipped with service ports that allow for the proper recovery of refrigerant during service or disposal of refrigerators and freezers because service ports act as an access point for recovery equipment. Under 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1), no refrigerant or substitute may be knowingl y vented unless otherwise exempted. For this reason most hermeticall y sealed appliances are equipped with process tubes that are used only for end - of

- life recovery

and which ty

pically do not leak. EPA does believe, however, that some hermetically sealed s ys tems eventually will be serviced and does not assume that such sy stems are alway s completely leak - proof. Therefore EPA continues to believe that if a service port or acce ss valve is installed after manufacture, it should employ a unique fitting that is maintained until the end - of - life of the appliance. One commenter specifically supported a requirement for unique fittings after the equipment i s serviced and for the remai nder of its life. EPA believes that such fittings , if installed, should be designed specifically

for flammable refrigerants, such that those fittings would not connect to service equipment designed for non - flammable refrigerants . Comment: Several commente rs observed that cross - contamination was not a significant risk. Two commenters stated that requiring unique fittings would not necessarily protect against cross contamination. One commenter stated that mixing of hydrocarbon s and other refrigerants would n ot pose a safety

concern unless air or oxygen were present. Another commenter asserted that since self - contained refrigerant s ys tems use onl y one refrigerant, there is no possibility that an appliance would be refilled with an incorrect refrigerant. That c ommenter also stated that proper refrigerant practices are in place that require separate recovery cylinders for different refrigerants , that technicians need only use one more type of cylinder, and that economic incentives can foster proper recovery

pract ices.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

64 of 96 Response: Overall, EPA disagrees with the comment that cross - contamination is unlikely . Depending on the type of equipment being serviced, and its ty pical servicing patterns, it is quite possible that refrigerants could be mixed, particularly where best practices are not employed. Currently , man y different refrigerants are used in refrigerators and freezers. Technicians are likel y to encounter numerous refrigerants

– now including hydrocarbons - raising the possibility that flammable refrigerants cou ld be mixed with non - flammable refrigerants or that flammable refrigerants could be added to an appliance designed for non - flammable refrigerants. Not onl y does the mixing of refrigerants pose a risk for the cooling s ys tem of the appliance, it also can limit reclamation options. Whereas

– as observed b y two commenters
– pure refrigerants have market value, contaminated refrigerants are costl y to re - purify into their individual refrigerant components , and costl y to discard properl y, raising the risk of illegal venting . Nevertheless, EPA agrees with the commenters that cross - contamination itself does not pose safety issues sufficient to warrant a mandatory

requirement for unique fittings. Comment: Several commenters observed that technicians could def eat the intent of the requirement b y using other kinds of fittings after first service. One commenter stated that service technicians have the tools to by pass unique fittings and would do so rather than purchase additional gauges and line sets to service the small number of hydrocarbon refrigerators. Another stated that most small appliances do not have fittings (unique or otherwise) and that technicians and the public could use li ne - piercing fittings if needed. Response: EPA understands that a requirement for unique fittings would not prevent illegal or improper efforts to service appliances if a technician were determined to do so. The “Further In formation” section in the regulation recommends that only technicians specif icall y trained in handling flammable refrigerants service refrigerators and freezers containing these refrigerants ,*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

65 of 96 and that t echnicians gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safely . We note that, in addition to preventing the mixing of refrigerant s , the proposed use condition was intended to reduce the risk of fire by ensuring that flammable refrigerants are used onl y in appliances designed for flammable refrigerants . The proposed use condition was intended to prevent a technician from inadvertently attempting to service a refrigerator as if it contained non - flammable refrigerant when it actuall y contained highl y flammable h ydrocarbon refrigerant, or vice versa. Comment: Four commenters stated that education is the best tool to prevent refrigerant contamination. One suggested creating a nationwide training program; the other, which specializes in training, observed that training had proven to be an effective option in lieu of a previous proposal to require unique fittings for high - pressure HFC refrigerants. Response: EPA supports the concept of a national training program for flammable refrigerants and welcomes industry

efforts to educate technicians on proper refrigerant use and proper service and disposal practices. I. Small C ontainers EPA received nine comments on the propos ed use condition to limit the sale of the hydrocarbon refrigerants in containers designed to hold less than five pounds ( 2.3 kg) . 31 This requirement was intended to prevent purchase b y untrained people who lack the skills or equipment necessary

to recover and charge refrigerant properl y. Six commenters supported the proposed requirement. Other comments are discussed below.

31 As mentioned previously, the proposed rule inadvertently represente d 5 pounds as 2.8 kilograms instead of 2.3 kg, which is accurate*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

66 of 96 Comment: T hree commenters opposed this requirement , stating that a small - container sales restriction was not the appropriate vehicle to compel proper training. One observed that properl y trained technicians know how to handle refrigerants safely ; another noted that the proposed rule protections , such as labeling , would help mitigate the potential risk associated with technician error ; and the third observed that untrained customers can already buy camping gas, which is a flammable gas like isobutane. In addition, on e of the commenter s opposing the requirement stated that it would pose practicality and logistics problems for its service network for household refrigerators. The commenter stated that a five - pound minimum requirement would result in the transport of more combustibles in a service vehicle than needed and that it would be preferable to use “right - sizing” canisters containing the exact charge for the particular appliance to ensure efficient and accurate service , to minimize the load a technician needs to car ry , and to prevent under - and over - charging. Response: After considering the comments received, EPA is removing the small - container sales restriction from the use conditions. EPA agrees that requiring the sale of the three hydrocarbon refrigerants in containers of at least five pounds could cause the transport of an unnecessary

amount of refrigerant and increase risks to service technicians and

– in the event of a vehicular accident

– to others on the road . EPA intended the proposed use condition to p revent or minimize the purchase of refrigerant b y untrained people who would not have the appropriate skills or equipment to properly recover or charge the refrigerant . However, after considering the comments, EPA recognizes that an unintended consequence of restricting smaller - container sales is the prospect that appliance owners could purchase non - refrigerant - grade propane such as camping gas to service their equipment. Non - refrigerant - grade h ydrocarbons could contain contaminants that might fail to be ab sorbed b y a filter drier, mix with the oil and cause high wear*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

67 of 96 on compressor bearings, or clog heat exchangers and capillary tubes. Such events could lead to equipment failure, increased servicing need, and more potential emissions of the refrigerant. Thes e effects could increase risk to the appliance owner, service technicians, and those involved in appliance disposal. As discussed in Section K of this preamble, EPA agrees with the importance of having hydrocarbon refrigerants handled only by trained technicians. The listing decisions for these three refrigerants in Appendix R to 40 CFR, p art 8 2 , s ubpart G, provide a recommendation that only technicians specificall y trained in handling flammable refrigerants service refrigerators and freezers containing th ese refrigerants. We also include a recommendation that technicians gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safel y . J. Use of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Other E nd - uses Comment: Three commenters requested that isobutane and propane be considered for use in both the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - use s. Six other commenters specificall y requested that isobutane be allowed for use in retail food refrigeration . All of these commenters reasoned that both refrigerants have similar phy sical characteristics (e.g., flammability

limits, toxicity

profiles, handling practices, safety group classification) and that the UL250 and UL 471 standards do not distinguish betw een them . Response: EPA is finalizing acceptability determinations only for the substitutes and end - uses identified in submissions to the Agency and in the proposed rule: isobutane and R - 441A in the household refrigeration end - use, and propane in the retail food refrigeration end - use. The submitters did not request review of isobutane or R - 441A in the retail food refrigeration end - use, or propane in the household refrigeration end - use, so EPA did not review those substitutes for those end - uses in this rule making.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

68 of 96 The SNAP regulations at 40 CFR p art 82, s ubpart G establish a process for the submission and review of SNAP applications and the finalization of acceptability determinations. EPA makes a listing determination after evaluation of the substitute. E PA follows a notice - and - comment rulemaking process to list substitutes that are proposed as acceptable subject to use conditions, acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, or unacceptable. Although EPA can issue SNAP determinations for substitutes and end - uses that were not provided by an applicant, the Agency must perform the same detailed anal ys is, based on the criteria described in the SNAP regulations. EPA would need to make a risk screen available to the public through the notice - and - comment rulemakin g process before making a listing decision . If EPA were to find those substitutes acceptable in those specific end - uses, use conditions would probably be necessary . We recognize the stakeholders’ interest in using isobutane in the retail food refrigeratio n end use and propane in the household refrigeration end - use. Preliminary information supports the observations that the use profiles and handling practices for these chemicals in these end - uses are very similar to the combinations of substitutes and end - u ses being finalized today . EPA may consider a subsequent rulemaking addressing the use of isobutane and R - 441A in the retail food refrigeration end - use, and propane in the household refrigeration end - use. Comment: One commenter noted that it did not have sufficient information on HCR - 188C and HCR - 188C1 (i.e., R - 441A ) to recommend their approval for the retail food refrigeration end - use . The commenter stated , however, that if ASHRAE Standard 34 were to classify those h ydrocarbon b lends as A3 refrigerants then the argument could be made that they should be listed in both end uses. Response: In February

2011 , ASHRAE issued Addendum g to Standard 34 - 2010, classifying R - 441A as an A3 refrigerant. We agree that an applicant may be able to support a petition to find*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

69 of 96 R - 441A acceptable subject to use conditions in the retail food refrigeration end - use based on our current understanding that R - 441A has characteristic s that are similar to those of propane . However, we do not currently have the appropriate technical demonstrations before us to propose, much less finalize , such a determination. If in the future a person submits a petition supported by a technical demonstration, we c ould take rulem aking action on such a listing. K. Training EPA received eight comments in response to its discussion of training in the preamble of the proposed rule. All acknowledged the value of training. Comment: One commenter recommended against a mandatory national training program , observing that in the Europe an Union, where h ydrocarbon refrigerants are more prevalent, there is no national training program and each manufacturer handles training on its own. Another commenter, a training organization for technicians, suggested that training be a required element of a federal certification of technicians. The commenter noted that EPA intends to update the “test bank” of test questions for technician certification under CAA s ection 608 , and so the Agency should recognize the merits of incorporating h ydrocarbon refrigerants into existing programs. This commenter stated that without a recertification program, hundreds of thousands of technicians will not see the new test questions. Theref ore the commenter suggested that EPA either c reate another “ty

pe” category

of certification under CAA s ection 608 addressing flammable refrigerants and/or r equire recertification of technicians every five years because of new refrigerants. One commenter st ated that EPA should strongl y consider delaying an y SNAP acceptability

listing for isobutane until such a program can be developed and deployed industry wide. The commenter observed that this could take two years and increase costs to consumers.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

70 of 96 Response: EPA agrees that training is an i mportant way for technicians to learn about the safe handling of flammable refrigerants. We recognize that there are some long - standing training programs on flammable refrigerants in other countries where h ydrocarbon refrig erants are currentl y in wide use . We also recognize that the use of h ydrocarbon refrigerants, and training on such use, is in its infancy in the U.S., and is generally tied directly

to specific products or applications, rather than generall y to multiple ty pes of products. Since the inception of the SNAP program and the s ection 608 refrigerant management program, we have continued to list a variety of new refrigerants as acceptable. EPA has not previously

required that certified technicians be recertified as a result of the listing of the additional refrigerants. Moreover, the goals of the s ection 608 technician certification program reflect the need to reduce emissions during servicing, maintenance, repair and disposal. They do not substitute for the proper training that is normally provided through trade schools, apprenticeships, or other industry mechanisms. Given the extent of technical knowledge available within the industry , we believe that industry is better equipped than EPA to define the specific co ntents of such training , and that it is not necessary for EPA to require training in order for newly listed refrigerants to be used as safel y as other refrigerants currentl y available. Although we have determined no t to require training as a use condition for these substitut es to ensure that they can be used as safely as other available refrigerants, we recommend that technicians receive training on the safe handling of hydrocarbon refrigerants through avenues such as industry - sponsored national training programs. L. Other Options Considered*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

71 of 96 EPA considered, and sought comment on, several other options or related issues in the proposed rule, although we did not propose them. This section describes comments the Agency received on those options. 1. Use only

in appliances specific to OEMs . EPA sought comment on an option that would allow isobutane and propane as a refrigerant for use only in OEM - specific appliances, as described in a SNAP application. The reason for such a limitation would be the concern that appliances from other manufacturers would not be designed with spark - proof engineering ; nor would the manufacturers be able to develop recovery equipment compatible with flammable refrigerants. Comment: EPA received two comments supporting EPA’s approach to not impose such a limitation. One obser

ved that limiting use to SNAP - reviewed equipment would be time consuming and costly

for all parties involved, with little added health and safety benefit. Response: EPA agrees that limiting refrigerant use to SNAP - reviewed equipment would be time - consumi ng and costly for all parties involved. We believe that adherence to the UL standards and the use conditions in this rule will help ensure that equipment is designed to use these refrigerants safel y , and that use of these substitutes will present risks that are lower than or comparable to the risks from other potential substitutes. Thus we believe it is not necessary to include such a limitation . 2. Recovery

equipment . EPA observed that it had considered proposing a use condition requiring that recovery

equipment used to recapture flammable refrigerants be compatible with flammable refrigerants, and sought information on whether there currentl y i s an industry standard for recovery

units for flammable refrigerants and whether specific recovery units are avai lable that are compatible with the refrigerants address ed in today ’s rule.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

72 of 96 Comment: One commenter stated a belief that there are no known manufacturers of recovery equipment for h ydrocarbon refrigerants. Another commenter stated that recovery equipment used to recover flammable refrigerants must be compatible with flammable refrigerants, and in the absence of an industry

standard , it has developed its own service equipment designed to recapture a flammable refrigerant in accordance with federal and state regulations. A third commenter observed that recovery

units are only

used in countries like the U.S. where ve nting is not allowed . Finally , one commenter observed that it uses a recovery device in its U.S. test market that is specificall y designed for use with flammable refrigerants. Response: The availability of recovery

equipment is not necessary to ensure that the refrigerant will not pose more risk than other available substitutes in this end - use. EPA will continue to assess the need for, and availability of, recovery

equipment that is compatible with flammable refrigerants. 3. Venting prohibition . EPA sought comment on whether, in a future rulemaking, it should consider exempting h ydrocarbon refrigerants from the s ection 608 venting prohibition. Comment: Several commenters expressed varying levels of support for exempting hydrocarbon refrigerants from the venting prohibition. Two commenters expressed unequivocal support, and four stated that they would support such an exemption if EPA were to confirm there would be no health impact. Another commenter asserted that venting would pose little environmental impact, comparing the worst - case scenario release of 150 grams from retail food refrigeration end - uses, or 57 grams from household refrigeration end - uses, to one and one - third pound , respectivel y, of CO 2 equivalent. Another commenter stated that iso butane is not dangerous , but should not be vented in enclosed spaces. Another commenter supported a venting exemption during servicing , but advocated recovery at end - of - life due to environmental risks*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

73 of 96 associated with the release of refrigerant and oil capt ured in the refrigerant. Finally, a commenter stated that the environmental impact from venting such small charges is minimal and that safety concerns could be better mitigated through a properly designed and executed educational program. One commenter exp ressed reservations about allowing venting , and recommended further assessment of flammability risks as well as the potential risk associated with the release of sy nthetic refrigerant oil during venting. Response: EPA appreciates the information provided by commenters. Venting is addressed by s ection 608 of the CAA and EPA will develop a separate rule under that authority if we determine that hydrocarbon refrigerants in the household refrigeration and retail food refrigeration end - uses should be exempted from the venting prohibition. EPA exercised such authority to exempt hydrocarbons used in industrial process refrigeration sy stems from the venting prohibition (see 69 FR 11946) , but has not made a similar determination for h ydrocarbons used in household and retail food refrigerators and freezers. Currentl y, EPA’s regulations implementing s ection 608 at s ubpart F to 40 CFR p art 82 would prohibit venting of isobutane, propane, and R - 441A refrigerants during service, maintenance, repair, and disposal from the end - uses considered in this rule. 4. Requiring onl y one use condition . EPA sought comment on an approach that it considered (but did not propose): to require that the onl y use condition for each h ydrocarbon refrigerant be to meet appl icable UL 250 and UL 471 standards. Comment: EPA received one comment, which opposed such a provision. Response: As described above, and consistent with the proposal, EPA has not limited the use conditions to compliance with the ULstandards.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

74 of 96 5. “Unacc eptable” finding pending industry - wide servicing standards . EPA sought comment on (but did not propose) finding h ydrocarbon refrigerants unacceptable until an industry- wide standard exists for servicing appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants. Comment: EPA received two comments on this issue, one opposing and one supporting. Neither commenter provided a rationale for its recommendation. Response: As described elsewhere, and consistent with the proposal, EPA is finding the three hydrocarbon refrigerants acceptable subject to use conditions. M. Other Comments on Proposed Rule Comment: In a comment unrelated to the specifics of the proposed rule, one commenter recommended consideration of the ty pe of automated sy stem it uses on its production line. This sy stem sounds a pre - warning alarm when 20 percent of the LFL is reached and shuts down the sy stem if 40 percent of the LFL is reached. The commenter noted that this sy stem conforms to the European standard and is approved b y TUV (Technischer Überwachungs - V erein (Technical Inspection Association) ) , a German safety monitoring agency . Response: EPA does not believe it is necessary to establish a use condition requiring the type of sy stem suggested by

the commenter. OSHA addresses the use of flammable substanc es in the workplace, including through its regulations at 29 CFR 1910.106, as discussed in response to other comments below. To the extent a manufacturer believes that additional precautions are appropriate, we believe the manufacturer is in the best position to determine how to address the risks of installing a h ydrocarbon refrigerant considering the specific characteristics of its production facilities and personnel. We note that in addition to OSHA requirements, other forces such as con cerns for liability ; costs of fire and casualty insurance; and reputational interests may also dictate a firm’s behavior with respect to worker health and safety protections.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

75 of 96 This final rule includes, in the “Further Information” column of Appendix R , re commendations that OEMs institute safety precautions as needed in their facilities to address potential hazards in the production of appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants. EPA notes that OSHA regulations are in place to address such hazards. The table in Appendix M references OSHA requirements at 29 CFR p art 1910, including those at 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases), and 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). Nothing in these final listing decisions, including the “Further Information” column, supersedes other regulations such as these OSHA requirements. Comment: Another commenter recommended that the use conditions in the final rule address the use of an odorant as a w arning agent to alert manufacturing personnel or technicians of the presence of a leak. Without recommending how the issue should be addressed in this final rule, the commenter offered the following observations:  Technicians or manufacturers may use mercap tan as an odor warning agent;  Mercaptan is corrosive and is removed b y filters and driers in refrigeration systems;  Refrigerant classification standards for Australia and New Zealand require that Group A3 refrigerants be odorized or subject to alternative safety provisions. Response: EPA agrees that odorization is one way to alert manufacturing or servicing personnel of the presence of a h ydrocarbon refrigerant. EPA’s risk screen did not evaluate these refrigerants with the addition of an odorant, nor did our proposed rule address odorants in its discussion of refrigerant composition or in its proposed use conditions. Today’s final rule does not prohibit the introduction of an odorant into isobutane, propane, or R - 441 A refrigerant as long as the refrigerant remains within purity specifications. The use conditions in today ’s final rule,*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

76 of 96 such as red coloring and adherence to UL standards, provide ample safeguards to alert manufacturers, service personnel, and customers of the presence of a flammable refrigerant. **VI. What O**  **ther C**  **hanges I**  **s EPA M**  **aking in the F**  **inal R** **ule?** In addition to changes made in response to comments, as described in Section V above, EPA is making the following minor changes: A . Propane as Substitute for R - 502 EPA is revising the wording in the Appendix R table to correct a typographical error. As discussed above, this final rule lists propane as acceptable subject to use conditions as a substitute for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 in the retail food refrigeration end - use . In the NPRM, the propo sed Appendix R table erroneously omitted R - 502 (a blend of HCFC - 22 and CFC - 115) from the listing, although it was included in the preamble discussion. This final rule corrects the error by including R - 502 as one of the refrigerants for which propane is lis ted as a substitute in the retail food refrigeration end - use. B . Wording of Use Conditions for L abeling The use conditions in the proposed rule included requirements for marking (e.g., labeling ) of appliances using isobutane and HCR - 188C1 ( i.e., R - 441A) in the household refrigeration end - use, and propane in the retail food refrigeration end - use. EPA intended that language to mirror that of the ULstandards. We are making two minor changes to this requirement. First, we are restructuring the language for the requirement. The language of the proposed rule first listed the wording required for five different ty pes of labels, and then described where each of the labels was to be placed. For the final rule, we have moved the location requirements , so they are specified immediately before the corresponding label wording. EPA believes this minor*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

77 of 96 revision in the regulatory language provides more clarity and makes the use condition easier to implement. Second, EPA is making a minor technical correction to the wording of one of the labels. In the proposed rule , one of the labels was to read as follows:
“ (b) Near the machine compartment: "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices. To Be Repaired Onl y By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." The phrase “Do Not Use Mechanical Devices” was included erroneously in the proposed requirement . EPA recognizes that trained personnel may need to use mechanical devices to service the machine compartment. We have removed that phrase from the use condition in the final listing decision, m aking the condition consistent with the UL250 and UL471 requirements. C . “ Further Information” Column in L isting Decisions EPA is also modifying the recomm endations listed under “ Further Information” to more appropriatel y cross - reference existing OSHA regulations and to avoid confusion about the relationship between EPA and OSHA requirements. The proposed rule contained, under “ Further In formation , ” the fo llowing recommendations:  Technicians and equipment manufactures should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves when handling isobutane, HCR - 188C, and HCR - 188C1. Special care should be taken to avoid contact with the skin since isobutane, HCR - 188C, and HCR - 188C1 like many refrigerants, can cause freeze burns on the skin.  A class B dry

powder ty

pe fire extinguisher should be kept nearby .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

78 of 96  Proper ventilation should be maintained at all times during the m anufacture of appliances containing h ydrocarbon refrigerant through adherence to good manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 1910.110. 32 If refrigerant levels in the air surrounding the equipment rise above one - fourth of the lower flammability limit, the spa ce should be evacuated , and re - entry should only

occur after the space has been properl y ventilated.  Technicians should onl y use spark - proof tools when working refrigerators and freezers with R - 600a, HCR - 188C, and HCR - 188C1.  Recovery

equipment designed for flammable refrigerants should be used.  Only technicians specifically

trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service refrigerators and freezers containing these refrigerants. Technicians should gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safel y.  In production facilities or other facilities where large quantities of the refrigerant would be stored, proper safety precautions should be in place to minimize the risk of explosion. These facilities s hould be equipped with proper ventilation s ys tems to minimize the risks of explosion and should be properly designed and operated to reduce possible ignition sources.  Room occupants should evacuate the space immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant.

32 OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.110 consider ventilation adequate “when the concentration of the gas in a gas air mixture does not exceed 25 percent of the lower flammable limit.”*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

79 of 96 The Agency

did not receive any

comments on these recommendations. EPA believes that they are appropriate and that they serve as useful reminders of safe practices for technicians and manufacturers. EPA recognizes that some of these recommendations are reflected in OSHA regulations for worker health and safety. For this reason , EPA is adding a cross - reference to OSHA regulations at 29 CFR p art 1910 (Occupational Health and Safety Standards) in order to ensure that regulated entities are aw are of these requirements . Specificall y, Appendix R provides a cross - reference to 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 (portable fire extinguishers), and 1910.1000 (toxi c and hazardous substances ) . **VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews** A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory

action.” It raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingl y, EPA submitted this action to the Off ice of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under E xecutive O rders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any

changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an y new information collection burden. This final rule is an Agency determination. Itcontains no new requirements for reporting. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requireme nts contained in the existing regulations in subpart G of 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the Paperwork*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

80 of 96 Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060 - 0226. This In formation Collection Request (ICR) included five ty pe s of respondent reporting and recordkeeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test marketing activity , recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions, and recordkeeping for small - volume uses. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.C. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act ( RFA ) generall y requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility anal ys is of an y rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or an y 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 this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined b y S mall Business Administration regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city , county, town, school district or special district with a population of les s than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not - for profit enterprise which is independentl y owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this 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 econom ic impact on small entities, since the primary

purpose of the regulatory flexibility

analy ses is to identify

and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

81 of 96 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 r ule. The requirements of this final rule affect the manufacturers of household refrigerators and freezers and retail food refrigerators and freezers . Today ’s action allows users the additional options of using isobutane, propane, and R - 441A , but does not m andate such use . Because isobutane, propane, and R - 441A refrigeration s ys tems are not yet manufactured in the U.S. (with the exception of limited test - marketing) , and because the final rule actuall y imposes fewer requirements than the proposed rule (i.e., removal of the unique fittings requirement), manufacturers would not be required to change business practice s to meet the use conditions and thus the rule would not impose any new costs on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The enforceable requirements of this final rule related to integrating risk mitigation devices, markings, and procedures for maintaining the safety of household refrigerators and freezers and retail food refrigerat ors and freezers using hydrocarbon refrigerants affect only small number of manufacturers of these appliances and their technicians. This rule provides additional refrigerant options, allowing greater flexibility for industry

in designing consumer products . Further, since appliances using hydrocarbon refrigerants are not yet widely produced in the U.S. , we do not expect impacts on existing users. Thus this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

82 of 96 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 regulation applies directly to facilities that use these substances and not to governmental entities. The finding of “acceptability subject to use conditions” for isobutane, propane, and R - 441A does not impact the private sector because manufacturers are not producing sy stems under the current regulation. This final rule does not mandate a switch to these substitutes; consequently, there is no direct economic impact on entities from this rulemaking. 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 Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies directl y to facilities that use th ese substances and not to governmental entities. Thus Executive Order 13132 does not appl y to this action. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks This action is not subj ect to Executive Order 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 b y this action present a*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

83 of 96 disproportionate risk to children. This final rule provides both regulatory restrictions and recommended guidelines based upon risk screens conducted in order to reduce risk of fire and explosion. H . Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy

Supply , Distribution, or Use This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect o n the supply , distribution, or use of energy . Preliminary information indicates that appliances using these hydrocarbon refrigerants may be more energy - efficient than currentl y available systems in some climates. Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any

adverse energy effects. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( “NTTAA ” ), Pub L. No. 104 - 113, (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 proced ures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rule involves incorporation b y reference of technical standards issued by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) concerning the safety and reliability

of flammable refrigerants. ULstandards are voluntary consensus standards. The use conditions i n the rule require, for the household refrigeration end - use, adherence to the UL Standard for Household Refrigerators and*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

84 of 96 Freezers, UL 250 , 10 th edition, 1993, updated August 2000. The use conditions also require, for the retail food refrigeration end - use, adherence to the ULStandard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 471 , 10th edition, November 2010. Copies of UL250 and UL471 may be purchased at http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ . J. Executiv e Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Populations Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 thei r programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionatel y high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or l ow - income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including an y minority or low - inco me population . This final rule would allow sale of appliances with refrigerant substitutes that have no ODP and low GWP s . The reduction in ODS and GHG emissions would assist in restoring the stratospheric ozone layer and provide climate benefits. K. Congr essional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added b y the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generall y provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a cop y of the*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

85 of 96 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 o f the rule in the Federal Register . A m ajor rule cannot take effect until 60 day s 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 [ IN SERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUB LICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGI STER ] . **VIII. References** This preamble references the following documents, which are also in the Air and Radiation Docket at the address listed in Section I .B.1. Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available electronic ally

through the Federal Docket Management S ys tem, Docket # EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0286 . ACRIB, 2001. Guidelines for the Use of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants in Static Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Industry Board. 2001. A.D. L ittle, 1991. Risk Assessment of Flammable Refrigerants for Use in Home Appliances (draft report) . Arthur D. Little, Inc., for EPA, Division of Global Change. September 10, 1991. Docket item EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0286 - 0023. A.D. L ittle, 2002. Global Comparative Anal ys is of HFC and Alternative Technologies for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Foam, Solvent, Aerosol Propellant, and Fire Protection Applications. Final Report to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy , March 21, 2002. Avai lable online at http://www.arap.org/adlittle/4.html . Accessed on October 13, 2011. AHRI , 2008. Air - Conditioning, Heati ng, and Refrigeration Institute, AHRI Guideline N - 2008: Assignment of Refrigerant Co lors. 2008.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

86 of 96 ASHRAE, 2010. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air - Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Standard 34 - 2010: Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants . 2010. (Supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34 - 2007.) A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. , 2007. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency . June 2007. A.S. Trust & Holdings, Inc. , 2009. HCR - 188C New Composition. Follow - up to the HCR 188C Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States E nvironmental Protection Agency . August 2009. Ben and Jerry ’s , 2008. Ben and Jerry ’s /Unilever , Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental P rotection Agency, October 2008. EPA, 1994. Significant New Alternatives Policy Technical Background Document: Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for Class IOzone - Depleting Substances: Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. Stratospheric Protection D ivision. March, 1994. GE , 2008. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Submission to the United States Environmental Protection Agency , October 2008. Greenpeace, 1997. “Greenfreeze A Revolution in Domestic Refrigeration.” Available online at http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/ . Accessed on October 13, 2011. IC F, 1997. ICF Consulting. Phy siological Effects of Alternative Fire Protection Agents - Hy poxic Atmospheres Conference. Stephanie Skaggs prepared the proceedings of the conference held May 22, 1997 in New L ondon, CT.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

87 of 96 IC F, 2009a. ICF Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program - Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12 in Household Refrigerators and Household Freezers

– Substitute: I sobutane.” May 22, 2009. IC F, 2009b. ICF Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program - Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22 , and R502 in Retail Food Refrigeration

– Substitute: Propane.” May 26, 2009. IC F, 20 09c . IC F Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program in the Household Refrigeration Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 i n Household Refrigerators , Freezers and Window AC Units

– Substitute: HCR - 188C.” July 17 , 2009 . IC F, 20 09d . ICF Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program

– Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 in Household Refrigerators and Freezers

– Substitute: HCR - 188C1.” November 6, 2009 . IC F, 20 11 a. ICF Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12 and HC FC - 22 in Household Refrigerators and Household Freezers

– Substitute: I sobutane . ” June 2011. IC F, 20 11 b. ICF Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12, HCFC - 2 2 and R502 in Retail Food Refrigeration

– Substitute: Propane . ” June 2011 . IC F, 20 11 c . IC F Consulting. “Significant New Alternatives Policy Program in the Household Refrigeration Sector

– Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 in Household Refrigerators and Freezers

– Substitute: R - 441.” Ju ne 2011. IC F, 2011 d . ICF Consulting. “Additional end - use modeling for household refrigerators and freezers . ” July

2011.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

88 of 96 IPCC/TEAP , 2005. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate Sy stem: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited b y Bert Metz, L ambert Kuijpers, Susan Solo mon, Stephen O. Anders e n , Ogunlade Davidson, Jose Pons, David de Jager, Tahl Kestin, Martin Manning and Leo Meyer. Cambridge University Press. 2005. Available online at: http://www.ipc c.ch/pdf/special - reports/sroc/sroc_full.pdf Murray , D.M. 1997. “Residential House and Zone Volumes in the United States: Empirical and Estimated Parametric Distributions.” Risk Analy sis . 17(4): 439 - 446. ORNL , 1997. J. Sand, S. Fischer, and V. Baxter, “En ergy and Global Warming Impacts of HFC Refrigerants and Emerging Technologies,” 1997, Oak Ridge National L ab . RTOC, 2010. The 2010 Report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee (RTOC). Available online at http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/RTOC/RTOC - Assessment - report 2010.pdf . TEAP , 2010. United Nations Environment Programme. Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. Available online at http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/teap - 2010 - progress - report - volum e2 - May2010.pdf Underwriters Laboratories (UL), 2000. UL 250: Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating Sy stem. Underwriters Laborat ories, Inc. August 25, 2000. Underwriters Laboratories (UL), 20 10 . UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating Sy stem. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 24, 2010.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

89 of 96 World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2011. WMO Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010. Available online at http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/index.shtml .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

90 of 96 **Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone -**  **Depleting Substances –**  **Hydrocarbon Refrigerants Final Rule**  **Page 90**  **of 96**  **pages** List of Subjects in 40 CFR p art 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, In corporation by

reference, R eporting and recordkeeping requirements Date: _______________________________________

______

___________________________________________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

91 of 96 For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 82 as follows: PART 82 - PROTECTI ON OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for p art 82 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671 - 7671q. Subpart G

– Significant New Alternatives Policy Program 2. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix R to read as follows: Appendix R to s ubp art G of p art 82 - Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions L isted in the [ DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGI STER ] final rule, Effective [ IN SERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERALREGI STER ].*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

92 of 96 SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS End - use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information Household refrigerators , freezers , and combination refrigerators and freezers (N ew equipment o nly) Isobutane ( R 600a) as a substitute for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 R - 441A as a substitute for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 Acceptable

S ubject To Use Conditions These refrigerants may be used only in new

equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the refrigerant (i.e., none of these substitutes may be used as a conversion or “ retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment designed for a different refri gerant). These refrigerants may be used only in a refrigerator or freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer, that meets all requirements listed in Supplement SA to the 10 th edition of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for Household Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 250 , dated 1993 updated August 2000 . In cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of the 10 th edition of UL 250, the appli ance must meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL S tand ard. The quantity of the substitute refrigerant (i.e., “charge size”) shall not exceed 57 grams (2.0 ounces) in any refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrige rato r and freezer for each circuit. Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR p art 1910 must be followed, including those at 29 CFR 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases), 1910.157 (portabl e fire extinguishers), and 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). Proper ventilation should be maintained at all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon refrigerants through adherence to good manufacturing practic es as per 29 CFR 1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air surrounding the equipment rise above one - fourth of the lower flammability limit , the space should be evacuated and re - entry should occur only after the space has been properly ventilated. Technic ians and equipment manufacturers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles and protective gloves, when handling isobutane and R - 441A. Special care should be taken to avoid contact with the skin since these refrigerants, like many refrigerants, can cause freeze burns on the skin. A class B dry powder type fire extinguisher should be kept nearby. Technicians should only use spark - proof tools when working on refrigerators and freezers with isobutane and R - 441A. Recov ery equipment designed for flammable refrigerants should be used. Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service refrigerators and freezers containing these refrigerants. Technicians should gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safely.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

93 of 96 End - use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information Household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers (New equipment only) Isobutane (R 600a) as a substitute for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 R - 441A as a substitute for CFC - 12 and HCFC - 22 Acceptable

Subject To Use Conditions As provided in clauses SA6.1.1 and

SA6.1.2 of UL Standard 250, the following markings shall be attached at the l ocations provided and shall be permanent: (a) On or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer: "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refriger ant Tubing." (b) Near the machine compartment: "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." (c) Near the machine compartment: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed." (d) On the exterior of the refrigerator: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used." (e) Near any and all exposed refrigerant tubing: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Used." All of these markings shall be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high. The refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer must have red, Pantone® Matching System (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other de vices through which the refrigerant is serviced (typically known as the service port) to indicate the use of a flammable refrigerant. This color must be present at all service ports and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the ref

rigerant circuit to the atmosphere might be expected (e.g., process tubes). The color mark must extend at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from the compressor and must be replaced if removed. Room occupants should evacuate the space immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. If a service port is added then household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerator and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non flammable refrigerant. “Differ” means that either the diameter differs by at least 1/16 inch or the thread direction is reversed (i.e., right - handed vs. left handed). These different fittings should be permanently affixed to the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end - of - life of the unit, and should not be accessed with an adaptor .*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

94 of 96 End - use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information R etail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only) (New equipment o nly) Propane ( R 290 ) as a substitute for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 Acceptable

subject to use conditions These refrigerants may be used only in

new equipment specifically designed and clearly identified for the refrigerants (i.e., none of these substitutes may be used as a conversion or “retrofit” refrigerant for existing equipment designed for o ther refrigerants). These substitutes may only be used in equipment that meets all requirements in Supplement SB to the 10 th edition of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, UL 471 , dated November 2010 . In cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of the 10 th edition of UL 471, the appliance must meet the requirements of the final rule in place of the requirements in the UL Standard. The charge size for the retail food refrigerator or freezer shall not exceed 150 gram s (5.3 ounces) in each circuit. Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR p art 1910 must be followed, including those at 29 CFR 1910.94 (ventilation) and 1910.106 (flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases), and 1910.1000 (toxic and hazardous substances). Proper ventilation should be maintai ned at all times during the manufacture and storage of equipment containing hydrocarbon refrigerants through adherence to good manufacturing practices as per 29 CFR 1910.106. If refrigerant levels in the air surrounding the equipment rise above one - fourth of the lower flammability limit, the space should be evacuated and re - entry should occur only after the space has been properly ventilated. Technicians and equipment manufacturers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical g oggles and protective gloves, when handling propane . Special care should be taken to avoid contact with the skin since propane , like many refrigerants, can cause freeze burns on the skin. A class B dry powder type fire extinguisher should be kept nearby. Technicians should only use spark - proof tools when working on refrigerators and freezers with propane . Recovery equipment designed for flammable refrigerants should be used. Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants shou ld service refrigerators and freezers containing these refrigerants. Technicians should gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safely. Note: In accordance with the limitations provided in s ection 310(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7610(a)), nothing in this table shall affect the Occupational Safety and Health Administrations’ authority to promulgate and enforce standards and other requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 197 0 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

95 of 96 End - use Substitute Decision Use Conditions Further Information R etail food refrigerators and freezers ( stand - alone units only) (N ew equipment o nly) Propane ( R 290 ) as a substitute for CFC - 12, HCFC - 22, and R - 502 Acceptable

subject to use conditions As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5

of UL Standard 471, the following markings shall be attached at the locations pr ovided and shall be permanent: (a) Attach on or near any evaporators that can be contacted by the consumer: "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." (b) Attach near the machine compartment: "DANGER - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant U sed. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing." (c) Attach near the machine compartment: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting To Service This Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed." (d) Attach on the exterior of the refrigerator: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used." (e) Attach near any and all exposed refrigerant tubing: “CAUTION - Risk of Fire or Explosion Due To Puncture Of Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling Instructions Carefully. Flammable Refrigerant Used." All of these markings shall be in letters no less than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high. The refrigerator or freezer must have red, Pantone® Matching System (PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, and other devices through which the refrigerant is serviced, typically known as the service port, to indicate the use of a flammable r efrigerant. This color must be present at all service ports and where service puncturing or otherwise creating an opening from the refrigerant circuit to the atmosphere mi ght be expected (e.g., process tubes) . The color mark must extend at least 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) from the compressor and must be replaced if removed. Room occupants should evacuate the space immediately following the accidental release of this refrigerant. If a service port is added then household refrigerators, freezers, and combinati on refrigerator and freezers using these refrigerants should have service aperture fittings that differ from fittings used in equipment or containers using non - flammable refrigerant. “Differ” means that either the diameter differs by at least 1/16 inch or the thread direction is reversed (i.e., right - handed vs. left handed). These different fittings should be permanently affixed to the unit at the point of service and maintained until the end - of - life of the unit, and should not be accessed with an adaptor.*** E.O. 12866 Review

–Revised

– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

96 of 96 Note: The use conditions in this appendix contain references to certain standards from Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL). The standards are incorporated by reference , and the referenced sections are made part of the regulations in part 82: 1. UL 250: Household Refrigerators and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories , Inc . August 25, 2000. 2. UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. 10 th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories , Inc . November 24, 2010. The Director of the Federal Register a pproves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of UL Standards 250 and 471 may be purchased at http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ . You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington DC or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For questions regarding access to these standards, the telephone number of EPA’ s Air and Radiation Docke t is 202 - 566 - 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202 - 741 - 6030, or go to: http://www.archives .gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . [FR Doc. ]