Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21871 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: April 1, 2013. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08670 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0109; A–1–FRL– 

9799–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Connecticut; 111(d)/129 

Revised State Plan for Large and Small 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Clean Air Act 111(d)/129 State Plan 

revisions for Large and Small Municipal 

Waste Combustors (MWC) submitted by 

the Connecticut Department of Energy 

and Environmental Protection (DEEP) 

on October 22, 2008. The revised Plan 

is in response to amended emission 

guidelines (EGs) and new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for Large 

MWCs promulgated on May 10, 2006. 

Connecticut DEEP’s State Plan is for 

implementing and enforcing provisions 

at least as protective as the EGs 

applicable to existing Large and Small 

MWC units pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, 

Subparts Cb and BBBB, respectively. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2013–0109 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mcdonnell.ida@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0653. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0109’’, 

Ida McDonnell, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxic, & Indoor 

Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Ida McDonnell, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, 

Toxic, & Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post 

Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Bird, Air Permits, Toxic, & 

Indoor Programs Unit, Air Programs 

Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail 

Code: OEP05–2, Boston, MA, 02109– 

0287. The telephone number is (617) 

918–1287. Mr. Bird can also be reached 

via electronic mail at 

bird.patrick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

State Plan revisions as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: March 27, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08644 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0580 FRL–9798–4] 

RIN 2060–AM09 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Revision of the Venting Prohibition for 

Specific Refrigerant Substitutes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is proposing to amend the 

regulations promulgated as part of the 

National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program under section 608 of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing to 

exempt from the prohibition under 

section 608 on venting, release and 

disposal certain refrigerant substitutes 

listed as acceptable or acceptable 

subject to use conditions in regulations 

promulgated as part of EPA’s Significant 

New Alternative Policy Program under 

section 612 of the Act on the basis of 

current evidence that their venting, 

release and disposal does not pose a 

threat to the environment. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received by the 

EPA Docket on or before on June 11, 

2013. Any Party requesting a public 

hearing must notify the contact listed 

below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard 

Time on April 29, 2013. If a hearing is 

held, it will take place on or about May 

7, 2013 at EPA Headquarters in 

Washington, DC. EPA will post a notice 

in our Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ 

ozone/strathome.html, announcing 

further information should a hearing 

take place. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0580. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

from the EPA Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. This Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sally Hamlin Stratospheric Protection 

Division, Office of Air and Radiation, 

MC 6205J, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9711; fax number: 

(202) 343–2338; email address: 

hamlin.sally@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed action, if finalized as 

proposed, would extend the exemption 

from the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1) to certain refrigerant 

substitutes in certain end-uses for which 

EPA has found the refrigerant 

substitutes acceptable or acceptable 

subject to use conditions under CAA 

section 612 and the implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart 

G. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

exempt from the venting prohibition 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A, which 

were listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers, 

and propane (R–290), which was listed 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

as a refrigerant substitute in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (standalone 

units only). 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What abbreviations and acronyms are used 

in this action? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. How does the national recycling and 

emission reduction program work? 

III. What is EPA’s determination of whether 

venting, release or disposal poses a 

threat to the environment? 

IV. What revision to the venting prohibition 

is EPA proposing? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

VI. References 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Potentially regulated entities may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following. 

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

Category NAICS Code Description of regulated entities 

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

Industry ............. 333415 Manufacturers of refrigerators, freezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, electric or other; 

heat pumps not elsewhere specified or included (NESOI); and parts thereof. 

Industry ............. 562920, 423930 Facilities separating and sorting recyclable materials from non-hazardous waste streams (e.g., scrap 

yards) and merchant wholesale distribution of industrial scrap and other recyclable materials. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

regarding entities likely to be regulated 

by this proposed action. Other types of 

entities not listed in the table could also 

be affected. To determine whether your 

company is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria contained in 

section 608 of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 

the Act) as amended, and relevant 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 

82, Subpart F. If you have any questions 

about whether this proposed action 

applies to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding section, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What abbreviations and acronyms are 

used in this action? 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS—Chemical Abstracts Service 

CBI—confidential business information 

CFC—chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EO—Executive Order 

FR—Federal Register 

GWP—Global warming potential 

HCFC–22—the chemical 

chlorodifluoromethane, CAS Reg No. 75– 

45–6 

HCFC–142b—the chemical 1-chloro-1,1- 

difluoroethane, CAS Reg No. 75–68–3 

HFC—hydrofluorocarbon 

HFC–134a—the chemical 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoroethane, CAS Reg. No. 811–97–2 

IDLH—Immediately Dangerous to Life and 

Health 

LFL—lower flammability limit 

MVAC—motor vehicle air conditioning 

NIOSH—National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

ODP—ozone depletion potential 

ODS—ozone-depleting substance 

OMB—United States Office of Management 

and Budget 

OSHA—United States Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

PEL—Permissible Exposure Level 

ppm—parts per million 

REL—Recommended Exposure Level 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

STEL—Short Term Exposure Limit 

TWA—Time Weighted Average 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) 

Do not submit confidential business 

information (CBI) to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Submit 

information that you claim to be CBI to 

the person listed under the heading FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Clearly 

mark the part of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21873 

1 In this proposal, EPA sometimes uses the 

shorthand ‘‘venting prohibition’’ to refer to the 

section 608(c) prohibition of knowingly venting, 

releasing, or disposing of class I or class II 

substances, and their substitutes. 

2A list of ozone-depleting substances is available 

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

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR 2.2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to do the following: 

(a) Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

(b) Follow directions. The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

(c) Explain why you agree or disagree 

with the proposal; suggest alternatives 

and substitute language for your 

requested changes. 

(d) Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used in preparing your 

comments. 

(e) If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

(f) Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

(g) Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

(h) Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. How does the national recycling and 

emission reduction program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

under section 608 of the Clean Air Act? 

Section 608 of the Act as amended, 

titled National Recycling and Emission 

Reduction Program, requires EPA to 

establish regulations governing the use 

and disposal of ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS) used as refrigerants, 

such as certain chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFCs), during the service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration (IPR), including 

air-conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment. Section 608 also prohibits 

any person in the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or 

otherwise knowingly release or dispose 

of such ODS used as refrigerants therein 

in a manner which permits such 

substances to enter the environment. 

This prohibition similarly applies to the 

venting, release, or disposal of 

substitutes for such ODS used as 

refrigerants, unless the Administrator 

determines that venting, releasing, or 

disposing of such a substitute does not 

pose a threat to the environment. 

Section 608 is divided into three 

subsections. Briefly, section 608(a) 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

to reduce the use and the emissions of 

class I substances (e.g., CFCs and 

halons) and class II substances (HCFCs) 

to the lowest achievable level and to 

maximize the recapture and recycling of 

such substances. Section 608(b) requires 

that the regulations promulgated 

pursuant to subsection (a) contain 

standards and requirements for the safe 

disposal of class I and class II 

substances. Finally, section 608(c) 

contains self-effectuating provisions that 

prohibit any person from knowingly 

venting, releasing or disposing of any 

class I or class II substances, and their 

substitutes, used as refrigerants in 

appliances or IPR in a manner which 

permits such substances to enter the 

environment during maintenance, 

repairing, servicing, or disposal of 

appliances or IPR. 

EPA’s authority to propose the 

requirements in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) is based on section 

608. As noted above, section 608(a) 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

regarding use and disposal of class I and 

II substances to ‘‘reduce the use and 

emission of such substances to the 

lowest achievable level’’ and ‘‘maximize 

the recapture and recycling of such 

substances.’’ Section 608(a) further 

provides that ‘‘[s]uch regulations may 

include requirements to use alternative 

substances (including substances which 

are not class I or class II substances) 

* * * or to promote the use of safe 

alternatives pursuant to section [612] or 

any combination of the foregoing.’’ 

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

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

person, in the course of maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of an 

appliance or industrial process 

refrigeration, to knowingly vent or 

otherwise knowingly release or dispose 

of any class I or class II substance used 

as a refrigerant in such appliance (or 

industrial process refrigeration) in a 

manner which permits such substance 

to enter the environment.’’ The statute 

exempts from this self-effectuating 

prohibition ‘‘[d]e minimis releases 

associated with good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose’’ 

of such a substance. To implement and 

enforce the venting prohibition 1, EPA, 

as codified in its regulations, interprets 

releases to meet the criteria for 

exempted ‘‘de minimis’’ releases if they 

occur when the recycling and recovery 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated under sections 608 and 

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

Effective November 15, 1995, section 

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

prohibition in section 608(c)(1) to 

knowingly venting or otherwise 

knowingly releasing or disposing of any 

refrigerant substitute for class I or class 

II substances by any person 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances or IPR. This 

prohibition applies to any such 

substitute substance unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

venting, releasing, or disposing ‘‘does 

not pose a threat to the environment.’’ 

Thus, section 608(c) provides EPA 

authority to promulgate regulations to 

interpret, implement, and enforce this 

venting prohibition, including authority 

to implement section 608(c)(2) by 

exempting certain substitutes for class I 

or class II substances from the 

prohibition when the Administrator 

determines that such venting, release, or 

disposal does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

B. What are the regulations against 

venting, releasing or disposing of 

refrigerant substitutes? 

Final regulations promulgated under 

section 608 of the Act, published on 

May 14, 1993 (58 FR 28660), established 

a recycling program for ozone-depleting 

refrigerants recovered during the 

servicing and maintenance of airconditioning and refrigeration 

appliances. In the same 1993 final rule, 

EPA also promulgated regulations 

implementing the section 608(c) 

prohibition on knowingly venting, 

releasing or disposing of class I or class 

II controlled substances.2 These 

regulations substantially reduced the 

use and emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants. 

On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed to 

implement and clarify the requirements 

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

clarifying how the prohibition on 

venting extends to substitutes for CFC 

and HCFC refrigerants (63 FR 32044). 

EPA issued a final rule March 12, 2004 

(69 FR 11946) and a second rule on 

April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19273) clarifying 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

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

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

4Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) also include 

Hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs), which have at least one 

double bond between carbon atoms. 

5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) 2001. 

how the venting prohibition in section 

608(c) applies to refrigerant substitutes 

(e.g., hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs) in part or 

whole) during the maintenance, service, 

repair, or disposal of appliances. These 

regulations were codified at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. The regulation at 40 CFR 

82.154(a) states that: 

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

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances may knowingly vent 

or otherwise release into the environment 

any refrigerant or substitute 3 from such 

appliances, with the exception of the 

following substitutes in the following enduses: 

i. Ammonia in commercial refrigeration, or 

in [IPR] or in absorption units; 

ii. Hydrocarbons in [IPR] (processing of 

hydrocarbons); 

iii. Chlorine in [IPR] (processing of 

chlorine and chlorine compounds); 

iv. Carbon dioxide in any application; 

v. Nitrogen in any application; or 

vi. Water in any application. 

(2) The knowing release of a refrigerant or 

non-exempt substitute subsequent to its 

recovery from an appliance shall be 

considered a violation of this prohibition. De 

minimis releases associated with good faith 

attempts to recycle or recover refrigerants or 

non-exempt substitutes are not subject to this 

prohibition.’’ 

As explained in EPA’s earlier 

rulemaking concerning refrigerant 

substitutes, EPA has not promulgated 

regulations requiring certification of 

refrigerant recycling/recovery 

equipment intended for use with 

substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 

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

the lack of a current regulatory 

provision should not be considered as 

an exemption from the venting 

prohibition for substitutes that are not 

expressly exempted in § 82.154(a). Id. 

EPA has also noted that, in accordance 

with section 608(c) of the Act, the 

regulatory prohibition at § 82.154(a) 

reflects the statutory references to de 

minimis releases of substitutes as they 

pertain to good faith attempts to 

recapture and recycle or safely dispose 

of non-exempted substitutes. Id. 

III. What is EPA’s determination of 

whether venting, release or disposal 

poses a threat to the environment? 

Section 608(c)(2) extends the 

prohibition on venting in section 

608(c)(1) to substitutes for class I or 

class II substances, unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

venting, releasing, or disposing does not 

pose a threat to the environment. As 

explained above, in earlier rulemakings, 

EPA has exempted some refrigerant 

substitutes in specified end uses from 

the venting prohibition under CAA 

section 608, as addressed under 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1). 

Today EPA is proposing a 

determination to exempt from the 

venting prohibition three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes that EPA has 

previously listed as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions in 

the specified end uses under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program (76 FR 78832, 

December 20, 2011) as the venting, 

release, or disposal of these substitutes 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to exempt from the venting 

prohibition isobutane (R–600a) and R– 

441A, which were listed as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, as refrigerant 

substitutes in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers, and propane (R–290), 

which was listed as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, as a refrigerant 

substitute in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (standalone units only). 

This proposed exemption to the 

venting prohibition would not apply to 

refrigerants that are hydrocarbon blends 

containing any amount of any CFC, 

HCFC, HFC4, or PFC. EPA is seeking 

comment on this proposal that blends of 

hydrocarbons with any amount of any 

CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC not be exempt 

from the current prohibition on venting, 

release or disposal. 

The SNAP program, established under 

section 612 of the CAA, requires EPA to 

publish a list of substitutes for class I 

and class II substances that are 

unacceptable for certain uses and those 

that are acceptable for specific uses. In 

identifying acceptable substitutes under 

section 612(c), EPA is required to 

consider whether those substitutes 

present a significantly greater risk to 

human health and the environment as 

compared with other substitutes that are 

currently or potentially available. On 

March 18, 1994, EPA published the 

original rulemaking under section 612 

of the CAA (59 FR 13044) which 

established the process for 

administering the SNAP program and 

issued EPA’s first lists identifying 

acceptable and unacceptable substitutes 

in major industrial use sectors. The 

regulations are codified at 40 CFR Part 

82, subpart G. 

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

the CAA, EPA considers two factors in 

determining whether or not venting, 

release, or disposal of a substitute 

refrigerant during the maintenance, 

service, repair or disposing of 

appliances poses a threat to the 

environment. See 69 FR 11948 (March 

12, 2004). First, EPA determines 

whether venting, release, or disposal of 

the substitute refrigerant poses a threat 

to the environment due to inherent 

characteristics of the refrigerant, such as 

global warming potential. Second, EPA 

determines whether and to what extent 

such venting, release, or disposal 

actually takes place during the 

maintenance, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances, and to what 

extent such venting, release, or disposal 

is controlled by other authorities, 

regulations, or practices. To the extent 

that such releases are adequately 

controlled by other authorities, EPA 

defers to those authorities. 

In addressing these two factors, the 

analysis below discusses the potential 

environmental impacts and existing 

authorities, practices, and controls for 

isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A as 

substitutes in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

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

substitute in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (standalone units only). These 

refrigerants and end-uses were 

evaluated and determined to be 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions under SNAP in the 

December 20, 2011 final rule. 

A. Potential Environmental Impacts 

In the December 20, 2011 SNAP rule, 

EPA’s analysis of environmental 

impacts for these refrigerant substitutes 

discussed four types of environmental 

risks: ozone depletion potential, global 

warming potential, volatile organic 

compound (VOC) effects, and ecosystem 

risks (76 FR 78838). For this proposal, 

EPA’s discussion of potential 

environmental impacts for these 

refrigerant substitutes similarly focuses 

on the environmental risks associated 

with ozone depletion potential, global 

warming potential, VOC effects, and 

ecosystem risks. 

Hydrocarbons are VOCs. 

Hydrocarbons as VOCs can contribute to 

ground-level ozone (smog) formation 

and therefore indirectly contribute to 

global warming since the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change has identified ground-level 

ozone as a greenhouse gas.5 EPA’s 1994 

risk screen document, which was 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21875 

6EPA, 1994. Significant New Alternative Policy 

Technical Background Document. 

7As EPA noted in the December 20, 2011 SNAP 

rule, as a percent of annual VOC emissions in the 

U.S., this represents approximately 5 × 10¥6

percent (for isobutane in the household food 

refrigeration end-use), 5 × 10¥6 percent (for 

propane in the retail food refrigeration end-use), 

and 3 × 10¥7 percent (for R–441A in the household 

food refrigeration end-use) (76 FR 78838). 

8 Global warming potential values are from the 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 

2007 (AR4). 

9A chemical’s ODP is the ratio of its impact on 

stratospheric ozone compared to the impact of an 

identical mass of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC–11). 

The ODP of CFC–11 is defined as 1.0. The GWP 

quantifies a substance’s potential integrated climate 

forcing relative to carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 

specified time horizon. The 100-year integrated 

GWPs of isobutane, propane, and hydrocarbon 

blend R–441A were estimated to be 8, 3, and less 

than 5, respectively (76 FR 78838; December 20, 

2011). 

10REL–TWA is a time weighted average 

concentration for up to a 10-hour workday during 

a 40-hour workweek (NIOSH, 2005). 

11SNAP hydrocarbon rule docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0286: 1) ICF, 2009. 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: 

Isobutane’’, May 22, 2009. 2) ICF, 2009. 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. 3) ICF, 2009. 

ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program in the Household Refrigeration 

Sector—Risk Screen on Substitutes for CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22 in Household Refrigerators, Household 

Freezers and Window AC Units—Substitute: HCR– 

188C’’, July 17, 2009. 4) ICF, 2009. ICF 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: HCR– 

188C1’’, November 6, 2009. 

developed for the initial rule 

establishing the SNAP program listing 

hydrocarbons acceptable for an end-use 

(i.e., industrial process refrigeration— 

processing of hydrocarbons), describes 

the potential emissions of VOCs from all 

substitutes for all end-uses in the 

refrigeration and air-conditioning sector 

as likely to be insignificant relative to 

VOCs from all other sources (i.e., other 

industries, mobile sources, and biogenic 

sources).6 A more recent analysis 

indicates that in the extremely unlikely 

event that all appliances in end-uses 

recently found acceptable or acceptable 

with use conditions under SNAP (76 FR 

78838; December 20, 2011) were to leak 

their entire hydrocarbon charge over the 

course of a year, the resulting increase 

in annual VOC emissions, as a percent 

of all annual VOC emissions in the U.S., 

would be negligible.7 Therefore, the use 

of these hydrocarbons in the household 

refrigeration and retail food refrigeration 

end-uses is sufficiently small that it 

would not have a noticeable impact on 

local air quality. 

The global warming potential (GWP) 

of hydrocarbons is very low (i.e., less 

than 10). When compared to the GWP 

of other refrigerant substitutes, the 

GWPs of hydrocarbons are hundreds or 

thousands of times smaller, signifying 

significantly reduced global warming 

impact on a molecule per molecule 

basis. For example, the refrigerant 

substitutes R134A, R404A, R407C, and 

R410A have a GWP of 1430, 3920, 1770, 

and 2090, respectively over a 100 year 

time horizon compared with the 

hydrocarbons in this rule that have a 

GWP of less than 10 integrated over a 

100 year time horizon.8 As noted in the 

preceding paragraph, the volume of 

hydrocarbons listed as acceptable or 

acceptable with use conditions under 

SNAP that could be released from the 

specific uses relevant to this proposal 

would be small. Relative to the 

enormous volume of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) that is emitted to the atmosphere, 

with its global warming potential (GWP) 

of one (1), the volume of hydrocarbons 

that are listed as refrigerant substitutes 

under SNAP that might be released to 

the atmosphere is so small that it would 

have a negligible impact on the global 

climate. 

Hydrocarbons have an ozone 

depletion potential (ODP) of zero.9 The 

hydrocarbons listed as acceptable or 

acceptable with use conditions under 

SNAP do not contain chlorine or 

bromine, the two most prominent 

elements in chemicals that deplete 

stratospheric ozone. 

Similarly, EPA expects that releases of 

these hydrocarbons into the 

environment from their use as 

refrigerant substitutes will not pose 

significant ecosystem risks. 

Hydrocarbons are volatile and break 

down in the atmosphere into naturallyoccurring compounds in a relatively 

short time frame, with atmospheric 

lifetimes between 7–8 days. Due to their 

fast interaction with OH radicals in the 

atmosphere and resulting 

decomposition, and the known 

degradation products from this reaction 

with OH radicals, EPA does not expect 

any significant amount of deposition to 

adversely affect aquatic or terrestrial 

ecosystems (76 FR 78838; December 20, 

2011). 

Based on this analysis, EPA is 

proposing to find that the venting, 

release, or disposal of isobutane (R– 

600a) and R–441A as substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and propane (R–290) as a substitute in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(standalone units only) is not expected 

to pose a significant threat to the 

environment based on the inherent 

characteristics of these substances. 

B. Toxicity and Flammability 

In this section the Agency is 

providing information about toxicity 

and flammability of the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants listed as 

acceptable or acceptable with use 

conditions under SNAP (76 FR 78832; 

December 20, 2011). Additional 

information is available in that final 

SNAP rule. 

Hydrocarbons, including propane, 

isobutane and the hydrocarbon blend 

known as R–441A, are classified as A3 

refrigerants by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 34–2010, indicating that they 

have low toxicity and high 

flammability. Like most refrigerants, 

hydrocarbons can displace oxygen at 

high concentrations and cause 

asphyxiation. The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) recommended exposure limits 

(RELs) time weighted average (TWAs) 10

for propane, isobutane, and butane, are 

1,000ppm, 800ppm, and 800ppm, 

respectively. The Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) 

established a Permissible Exposure 

Limit (PEL) for propane of 1,000 ppm, 

and NIOSH established levels 

Immediately Dangerous to Life and 

Health (IDLHs) of 20,000 ppm and 

50,000 ppm for propane and butane, 

respectively. 

In prior actions under SNAP, EPA has 

evaluated the risks hydrocarbons used 

in certain refrigerant end uses could 

pose to workers and consumers and 

found that occupational exposures to 

these hydrocarbons should not pose a 

toxicity threat in these end-uses because 

the time-weighted average (TWA) 

exposures were significantly below 

industry and government occupational 

exposure limits (76 FR 78839; December 

20, 2011). 

EPA estimated the maximum TWA 

exposure for worker exposure scenarios 

and compared this value to relevant 

exposure limits for isobutane, propane, 

and hydrocarbon blends. The modeling 

results indicated that both the shortterm (15-minute and 30-minute) and 

long-term (8-hour) worker exposure 

concentrations at no point are likely to 

exceed 2 percent (for isobutane), 50 

percent (for propane), and 4 percent (for 

hydrocarbon blends) of the NIOSH REL 

for isobutane and propane or the 

refrigerant components for the 

hydrocarbon blends (ICF, 2009). 11

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

12 Ibid. 

13LFL is the minimum concentration in air at 

which flame propagation occurs. 

14 Isobutane, propane and a hydrocarbon blend, 

R–441a, have a LFL of 18,000ppm, 21,000ppm, and 

16,000ppm, respectively. 

15Use conditions for hydrocarbons in certain 

refrigeration end-uses are found at 40 CFR part 82 

subpart G, appendix R. 

16The OSHA standards and requirements for 

servicing hydrocarbons, as per 29 CFR 1910, 

include parts 1910.24 (on ventilation), 1910.106 (on 

flammable and combustible liquids), 1910.110 (on 

storage and handling of liquified petroleum gases), 

and 1910.1000 (on toxic and hazardous substances). 

EPA assessed the consumer and enduser exposure to the three hydrocarbons 

in both the household refrigeration enduse and for the retail food end-use. Even 

under the very conservative reasonable 

worst-case scenarios that were modeled, 

EPA found that exposures to any of the 

three hydrocarbons would not pose a 

toxicity threat because the TWAs were 

significantly lower than the NOAEL 

and/or acute exposure guideline level 

(AEGL).12

EPA has also evaluated the exposure 

risks to the general population for the 

use of the three hydrocarbons as a 

refrigerant in their respective end-uses. 

EPA concluded in a SNAP final rule (76 

FR 78832; December 20, 2011) that these 

hydrocarbons are unlikely to pose a 

toxicity risk to the general population, 

when used according to the applicable 

use conditions or regulations. 

Hydrocarbons have lower 

flammability limits (LFLs) 13 ranging 

from 16,000 ppm to 21,000 ppm.14 In 

prior rulemakings, EPA evaluated the 

potential risks of fire from the use of 

hydrocarbons as refrigerants in certain 

appliances, and engineering approaches 

to avoid ignition sources from the 

appliance. To address flammability 

risks, EPA issued recommendations for 

their safe use in certain end-uses 

through SNAP rulemakings (59 FR 

13044; 76 FR 78832) and specified use 

conditions for some end-uses.15 These 

SNAP rules indicated that existing 

regulatory requirements and industry 

standards and practices adequately 

protect workers, the general population, 

and the environment from the 

flammability risks from hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. Furthermore, the Agency 

believes that the flammability risks and 

occupational exposures to hydrocarbons 

are adequately regulated by OSHA, 

building, and fire codes at a local and 

national level. 

C. Authorities, Controls and Practices 

Within the heating, ventilation, and 

air-conditioning (HVAC) sector and the 

refrigeration sector, EPA has approved 

hydrocarbons under the SNAP program 

for use in IPR (processing of 

hydrocarbons), in household 

refrigeration, and in retail food (standalone units) refrigeration systems. In 

these applications, hydrocarbons have 

the potential to come into contact with 

workers, the general population, and the 

environment. However, analyses 

performed for both this proposed rule 

and the SNAP rules issued in 1994 and 

2011 (59 FR 13044 and 76 FR 38832, 

respectively) indicate that existing 

regulatory requirements and industry 

practices designed to limit and control 

these substances adequately control the 

emission of the listed hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. EPA concludes that the 

limits and controls under other 

authorities, regulations or practices 

adequately control the release and 

exposure to the three hydrocarbons and 

mitigate risks from any possible release. 

This conclusion is relevant to the 

second factor mentioned above in the 

overall determination of whether 

venting, release, or disposal of a 

substitute refrigerant poses a threat to 

the environment—that is, a 

consideration of the extent that such 

venting, release, or disposal is 

adequately controlled by other 

authorities, regulations, or practices. As 

such, this conclusion is another part of 

the determination that the venting, 

release or disposal of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants does not pose 

a threat to the environment. 

Industry service practices for 

hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment, 

according to industry and OSHA 

guidelines and standards, include 

monitoring efforts, engineering controls, 

and operating procedures. System 

alarms, flame detectors, and fire 

sprinklers are used to protect worker, 

process, and storage areas. During 

servicing, OSHA requirements are 

followed, including continuous 

monitoring of explosive gas 

concentrations and oxygen levels.16

In general, hydrocarbon emissions 

from refrigeration systems are likely to 

be significantly smaller than those 

emanating from the industrial process 

and storage systems, which are 

controlled for safety reasons. Further, in 

the SNAP rule listing hydrocarbons as 

acceptable subject to use conditions for 

use in household and commercial standalone refrigerators and freezers, the 

amount of refrigerant from a refrigerant 

loop is limited (57g for household 

refrigerators and freezers and 150g for 

commercial stand-alone refrigerators 

and freezers), indicating that 

hydrocarbon emissions are likely to be 

relatively small and adequately 

controlled. 

Occupational exposures to 

hydrocarbons are primarily controlled 

by OSHA requirements and national 

and local building and fire codes. 

OSHA’s Process Safety Management, 

confined space entry, and HAZWOPER 

requirements apply to all hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. These requirements include 

employee training, emergency response 

plans, air monitoring, and written 

standard operating procedures. 

Hydrocarbons are regulated as VOCs 

under sections of the Clean Air Act that 

address attainment and maintenance of 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for ground level ozone, 

including those sections addressing 

development of State Implementation 

Plans and those addressing permitting 

of VOC sources. 

The release and/or disposal of many 

refrigerant substitutes, including 

hydrocarbons, are controlled by other 

authorities including those established 

by OSHA and NIOSH guidelines, 

various standards, and state and local 

building codes. To the extent that 

release during the maintenance, repair, 

servicing or disposal of appliances is 

controlled by regulations and standards 

of other authorities, EPA believes these 

practices and controls for the use of 

hydrocarbons are sufficiently protective. 

These practice and controls could help 

mitigate any risk to the environment 

that may be posed by the venting, 

release or disposal of these three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants during the 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances. This 

conclusion addresses the second factor 

in the analysis described above and is 

thus part of the determination that the 

venting, release or disposal of these 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes does 

not pose a threat to the environment. 

D. Conclusion 

EPA has reviewed the potential 

environment impacts of three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in the end uses 

that we have listed as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions 

under SNAP, as well as the authorities, 

controls and practices in place for these 

three hydrocarbon refrigerants. Based on 

this review, EPA concludes that these 

three hydrocarbon refrigerants are not 

expected to pose a significant threat to 

the environment based on the inherent 

characteristics of these substances and 

the limited quantities used in the 

relevant applications. EPA additionally 

concludes that existing authorities, 

controls, and practices help mitigate 

environmental risk from the release of 

these three hydrocarbon refrigerants. In 

light of these two conclusions, EPA is 

proposing to determine, in accordance 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21877 

17Hydrocarbons (propane or R–290, butane or R– 

600, hydrocarbon blend A, and hydrocarbon blend 

B) were listed as acceptable substitutes in industrial 

process refrigeration (processing of hydrocarbons) 

(59 FR 13044). On December 20, 2011, EPA 

published a final rule (76 FR 78832) listing certain 

hydrocarbons (i.e., isobutane, propane, and 

hydrocarbon blend R–441A) as acceptable subject to 

use conditions in some refrigeration end-uses. 

18See 40 CFR 82.154(a), 69 FR 11979, and 70 FR 

19278. 

19EPA provided recommendations on the safe use 

and handling of hydrocarbons in a SNAP 

rulemaking listing certain hydrocarbons acceptable 

subject to use conditions in some refrigeration enduses (76 FR 78855; December 20, 2011). 

Recommendations are also found at 40 CFR part 82, 

subpart G, appendix R. 

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

evidence and risk analyses, the venting, 

release or disposal of these hydrocarbon 

refrigerants does not pose a threat to the 

environment. EPA is therefore 

proposing to extend the regulatory 

exemption from the venting prohibition 

at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1) that is currently 

in place for hydrocarbons used in IPR, 

to include the other uses for which 

hydrocarbons have been found 

acceptable or acceptable subject to 

conditions of use under the SNAP 

program. EPA requests comment on this 

proposed determination and action. 

IV. What revision to the venting 

prohibition is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

existing prohibition against knowing 

venting of refrigerant substitutes, 

extending the exemption to certain 

refrigerants consisting wholly of 

hydrocarbons and used in refrigeration 

uses listed by EPA as acceptable or 

acceptable subject to use conditions 

under EPA’s SNAP program.17 This is 

separate from and in addition to the 

current exemption for hydrocarbon 

refrigerants used in IPR.18 EPA is 

proposing to find that for the purposes 

of CAA section 608(c)(2), the venting, 

release or disposal of such hydrocarbon 

refrigerants from appliances does not 

pose a threat to the environment, 

considering both the inherent 

characteristics of these substances and 

other authorities, controls and practices 

that apply to such refrigerants. This 

proposed exemption to the venting 

prohibition would apply to the three 

hydrocarbons where they are used in 

household food refrigeration units and 

retail food refrigeration (stand-alone 

units); a separate exemption has already 

been promulgated for certain 

hydrocarbons in IPR (processing of 

hydrocarbons), and we are not 

proposing to amend that exemption in 

this rulemaking. Today’s proposal 

would exempt from the prohibition 

against knowing venting during the 

maintenance, servicing, repair or 

disposal of appliances three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants listed as 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions by the SNAP program: 

propane, isobutane, and the 

hydrocarbon blend R–441A. 

Today’s proposed changes would not 

affect the existing regulatory exemptions 

from the venting prohibition under 

608(c)(2) for refrigerant substitutes (i.e., 

ammonia in commercial refrigeration, or 

IPR, or in absorption units; 

hydrocarbons in IPR—processing of 

hydrocarbons; chlorine in IPR— 

processing of chlorine and chlorine 

compounds; carbon dioxide in any 

application; nitrogen in any application; 

or water in any application). EPA 

previously issued a determination 

finding these refrigerant substitutes do 

not pose a threat to the environment and 

amended the regulations at 

§ 82.154(a)(1) to exempt these 

substitutes in these uses from the 

venting prohibition (69 FR 11946, 

March 12, 2004; 70 FR 19278, April 13, 

2005). EPA is not proposing to amend 

those provisions, and therefore, this 

proposal should not affect those prior 

exemptions to the venting prohibition. 

EPA requests comments on today’s 

proposed determination exempting from 

the venting prohibition three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants listed as 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions by the SNAP program 

(propane, isobutane, and the 

hydrocarbon blend R–441A). Finally, 

EPA is not proposing recapture or 

recycling requirements for hydrocarbons 

at this time as the Agency believes that 

recovery equipment designed 

specifically for flammable refrigerants is 

not yet widely manufactured or 

commercially available in the U.S. 

However, EPA recommends the use of 

recovery equipment designed for 

flammable refrigerants, when such 

becomes available, in accordance with 

applicable safe handling practices.19

While EPA is not proposing recapture or 

recycling requirements at this time, EPA 

often provides information concerning 

best practices used by technicians. 

Therefore, EPA requests comments on 

whether hydrocarbon refrigerants 

should be first recovered and then 

released to the atmosphere particularly 

in an area where ventilation or access to 

outside environment is limited (e.g., 

room with no windows) and whether 

this is already common practice today. 

In addition, EPA is seeking comments 

about what recovery equipment should 

be used for recovering isobutane (R– 

600a) and R–441A, from household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers, as well as 

recovering propane (R–290) from retail 

food refrigerators and freezers 

(standalone units only). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). This action is an Agency 

determination. It contains no new 

requirements for reporting. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations in subpart F of 40 

CFR part 82 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control numbers 2060–0256. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is primarily engaged in the repair 

and maintenance of appliances and 

defined by NAIC code 811412 with 

annual receipts of less than 14 million 

dollars, or engaged in separating and 

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

yards) and defined by NAIC code 

562920 with annual receipts of less than 

19 million dollars, and merchant 

wholesale distribution of industrial 

scrap and other recyclable materials and 

defined by NAIC code 423930 with 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21878 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

fewer than 100 employees (based on 

Small Business Administration size 

standards), (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

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

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

This proposed rule, if it becomes 

final, is primarily deregulatory as it 

would exempt persons from the 

prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of 

the Clean Air Act, and as implemented 

by regulations at 40 CFR 82.145(a)(1), 

against knowingly venting or otherwise 

knowingly releasing or disposing of 

three specific hydrocarbon refrigerants 

during the maintenance, servicing, 

repair or disposal of appliances. We 

have therefore concluded that today’s 

proposed rule will relieve regulatory 

burden for all affected small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Thus, this action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action is deregulatory in nature and, if 

finalized as proposed, would create an 

exemption from a statutory and 

regulatory requirement. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in EO 

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

This action is deregulatory in nature 

and, if finalized as proposed, would 

create an exemption from a statutory 

and regulatory requirement, which 

would be benefit any state, local, or 

tribal government to the extent that they 

are affected. Thus, EO 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175 

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

proposed rule, if finalized, is 

deregulatory in nature and would create 

an exemption that could be available for 

the tribal communities or Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, EO 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to the EO 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections III 

in the preamble. The public is invited 

to submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess 

effects of early life exposure to the three 

hydrocarbon refrigerants that are the 

subject of this proposal. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in regulatory activities unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. This proposed rule does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule exempting certain 

hydrocarbons from the venting 

prohibition in end uses listed as 

acceptable or acceptable subject to use 

conditions will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because the release of hydrocarbons 

refrigerants would not pose a threat to 

the environment. This proposed action 

would not have any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 21879 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

VI. References 

The documents below are referenced 

in the preamble. All documents are 

located in the Air Docket at the address 

listed in section titled ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document. Unless 

specified otherwise, all documents are 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0580 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

A.D. Little, 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. 

ASHRAE, 2010. American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 

Standard 34–2010: Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants. 2010. 

(Supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2007.) 

EPA, 1994. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Technical Background Document: 

Risk Screen on the Use of Substitutes for 

Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances: 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. 

Stratospheric Protection Division. March, 

1994. 

ICF, 2009. 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: Isobutane’’, May 22, 2009. 

ICF, 2009. 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. 

ICF, 2009. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program in the 

Household Refrigeration Sector—Risk 

Screen on Substitutes for CFC–12 and 

HCFC–22 in Household Refrigerators, 

Household Freezers and Window AC 

Units—Substitute: HCR–188C’’, July 17, 

2009. 

ICF, 2009. ICF 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: HCR–188C1’’, 

November 6, 2009. 

ICF, 2011a. 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 Household 

Freezers— Substitute: Isobutane.’’ June 

2011. 

ICF, 2011b. 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.’’ June 2011. 

ICF, 2011c. ICF 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.’’ June 2011. 

ICF, 2011d. ICF Consulting. ‘‘Additional enduses modeling for household refrigerators 

and freezers.’’ July 2011. 

AR4, 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report 

(AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 

2007. 

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- 

progressreport-volume2-May2010.pdf. 

UL, 2000. 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. 

UL, 2010. UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators 

and Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: 

Requirements for Refrigerators and 

Freezers Employing a Flammable 

Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. 

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 

24, 2010. 

UL, 2011. Revisiting Flammable Refrigerants. 

White Paper. Underwriters Laboratories, 

Inc. February, 2011. 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 

2011. WMO Scientific Assessment of at 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/ 

SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/ 

index.shtml. Ozone Depletion: 2010. 

Available online. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Recycling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671g. 

■ 2. Section 82.154 is amended by 

adding section vii to paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 82.154 Prohibitions. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(vii) Effective [DATE 60 days after 

publication of final rule in the Federal 

Register], isobutane (R–600a) and R– 

441A as substitutes in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers; and propane 

(R–290) as a substitute in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (standalone 

units only). 

[FR Doc. 2013–08667 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[PS Docket No. 13–75; PS Docket No. 11– 

60; FCC 13–33] 

Improving 9–1–1 Reliability; Reliability 

and Continuity of Communications 

Networks, Including Broadband 

Technologies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission proposes a range of 

approaches to ensure that providers of 

9–1–1 communications services 

implement best practices and other 

sound engineering principles to 

improve the reliability and resiliency of 

the Nation’s 9–1–1 networks. The 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also 

proposes amendments to the 

Commission’s current rules to clarify 

and add specificity to service providers’ 

obligations to notify 9–1–1 call centers 

of communications outages. This action 

follows an inquiry by the Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau into 

widespread 9–1–1 service outages 

during the ‘‘derecho’’ windstorm that 

affected large portions of the United 

States in June 2012, revealing significant 

vulnerabilities in current 9–1–1 network 

configuration and service provider 

maintenance practices. The Commission 

requests comment on these proposals to 

improve the reliability and resiliency of 

9–1–1 networks and ensure that 9–1–1 

call centers receive timely and 

actionable notification of service 

outages. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 13, 2013 and reply comments by 

May 28, 2013. Written comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

June 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. Comments may be submitted 

mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS