19454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748; FRL–9922–26– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS04 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Listing of Substitutes for Refrigeration 

and Air Conditioning and Revision of 

the Venting Prohibition for Certain 

Refrigerant Substitutes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Significant New Alternatives 

Policy program, this action lists five 

flammable refrigerants as acceptable 

substitutes, subject to use conditions, in 

several end-uses: Household 

refrigerators and freezers, stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment, very 

low temperature refrigeration, nonmechanical heat transfer, vending 

machines, and room air conditioning 

units. This action also exempts from 

Clean Air Act Section 608’s prohibition 

on venting, release, or disposal the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

listed in this action as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in specific 

end-uses. We are finalizing this 

exemption for those substitutes, subject 

to those use conditions and in those 

end-uses, on the basis of current 

evidence that their venting, release, or 

disposal does not pose a threat to the 

environment. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 11, 

2015. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric 

Protection Division, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, Mail Code 

6205T, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number (202) 343–9163; fax number 

(202) 343–2338, email address: 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov. Notices 

and rulemakings under EPA’s 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program are available on EPA’s 

Stratospheric Ozone Web site at 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Executive summary 

B. Background 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

D. What acronyms and abbreviations are 

used in the preamble? 

II. How does the SNAP program work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements and 

authority for the SNAP program? 

B. What is EPA’s regulation implementing 

Section 612? 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

D. Where do I find additional information 

about the SNAP program? 

III. What action is the Agency taking? 

A. Listing decisions: Substitutes and enduses 

B. What are ethane, isobutane, propane, 

HFC–32, R–441A, and the ASHRAE 

classifications for refrigerant 

flammability? 

C. Use conditions 

D. Venting prohibition 

E. Recommendations for the safe use of 

flammable substitute refrigerants 

IV. What criteria did EPA consider in 

determining whether to list the 

substitutes as acceptable and in 

determining the use conditions, and how 

does EPA consider those criteria? 

A. Effects on the environment 

B. Flammability 

C. Toxicity and asphyxiation 

V. What are the differences between the 

proposed and final rules? 

VI. What are EPA’s responses to public 

comments? 

A. EPA’s acceptability determinations 

B. Environmental and public health 

impacts 

C. Toxicity 

D. Flammability 

E. Use conditions 

F. Technician training 

G. Venting prohibition 

H. Cost and economic impacts 

I. Statutory and executive order reviews 

J. Relationship with other rules 

K. Timing of final rule 

L. Other comments 

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 Low-Income 

Population 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

VIII. References 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

Pursuant to the SNAP program under 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 612, this 

final rule lists five flammable refrigerant 

substitutes as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in several refrigeration and 

air conditioning end-uses: Household 

refrigerators and freezers; retail food 

refrigeration, stand-alone equipment 

only; very low temperature refrigeration; 

non-mechanical heat transfer; vending 

machines; and room air conditioning 

(AC) units. The five refrigerant 

substitutes are: Difluoromethane (also 

known as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-32), 

ethane, isobutane, propane, and the 

hydrocarbon blend R–441A. The use 

conditions address safe use of 

flammable refrigerants and include 

incorporation by reference of portions of 

certain safety standards from 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL), 

refrigerant charge size limits, and 

requirements for markings on 

equipment using these refrigerants. This 

action also exempts from CAA Section 

608’s prohibition on venting, release, or 

disposal the hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes ethane, isobutane, propane, 

and R–441A in specific end-uses for 

which they are being listed in this 

rulemaking. We are finalizing this 

exemption for those substitutes on the 

basis of current evidence that their 

venting, release, or disposal from these 

specific end-uses does not pose a threat 

to the environment. 

This final rule lists all five refrigerants 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

in the same end-uses as in the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19455 

1Climate Change and President Obama’s Action 

Plan. June, 2013. Available in the docket and online 

at www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan. 

2Neither ethane nor HFC–32 are VOC under the 

definition at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

rule. This final rule retains the same use 

conditions as proposed for household 

refrigerators and freezers; retail food 

refrigeration, stand-alone equipment 

only; very low temperature refrigeration; 

non-mechanical heat transfer; and 

vending machines. For room AC units, 

EPA is retaining the same use 

conditions as proposed, with one 

exception. For portable AC units, EPA is 

not applying the proposed charge limits 

for packaged terminal AC (PTAC) units, 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP), 

and other floor mounted AC units, 

which are set forth in Table D. In this 

final rule, Table E (new) establishes 

charge limits for portable AC units, 

consistent with the requirements in 

Appendix F of UL 484, ‘‘Room Air 

Conditioners,’’ 8th Edition, dated 

August 2, 2012. EPA is making this 

change because we agree with 

commenters that the final rule should 

incorporate specific provisions for 

charge limits for portable units in UL 

484, which is the standard that is the 

basis of EPA’s other charge limits, as 

well. This final rule exempts the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerants for the enduses addressed in the proposed rule 

from the venting prohibition under CAA 

Section 608. HFC–32 remains 

prohibited from being knowingly vented 

or otherwise knowingly released or 

disposed of by any person maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing 

appliances containing HFC–32. 

EPA received a total of 37 comments 

from 35 commenters. Major topics 

raised by commenters included: The 

acceptability of each refrigerant; the 

environmental, flammability, and 

toxicity characteristics of the proposed 

refrigerants; the cost impacts of using 

the proposed refrigerants; the proposed 

use conditions; EPA’s recommendations 

for safe handling of the refrigerants; 

technician training; the relationship 

between this proposed rule and the 

proposed rule Protection of 

Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing 

Status for Certain Substitutes under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program (August 6, 2014, 79 FR 46126); 

and the proposed exemption from CAA 

Section 608’s prohibition on venting, 

release, or disposal of the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes. 

B. Background 

Consistent with the Climate Action 

Plan announced June 2013, which calls 

on EPA to ‘‘use its authority through the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program to encourage private sector 

investment in low-emissions technology 

by identifying and approving climatefriendly chemicals’’ (Climate Action 

Plan, 2013), this final rule approves a 

number of climate-friendly alternatives 

for various kinds of refrigeration and AC 

equipment. Using low-GWP alternatives 

instead of high-GWP HFCs reduces 

climate-damaging emissions. Use and 

emissions of HFCs are rapidly 

increasing because they are the primary 

substitutes for ozone-depleting 

substances, especially in many of the 

largest end-uses. Though they represent 

a small fraction of current total 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, their 

warming impact is hundreds to 

thousands of times higher than that of 

CO2 and other GHGs. Further, if left 

unregulated, emissions of HFCs in the 

United States are expected to double 

from current levels of 1.5 percent of 

GHG emissions to 3 percent by 2020 and 

nearly triple by 2030.1

This action lists as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, five flammable 

refrigerant substitutes that EPA believes 

present overall lower risk to human 

health and the environment compared 

to other available or potentially 

available alternatives in the same enduses. The refrigerants include one HFC 

refrigerant—HFC–32—and four 

hydrocarbon refrigerants—ethane, 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A. We 

are listing these substitutes as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

a number of stationary AC and 

refrigeration end-uses under the SNAP 

program, including: Household 

refrigerators and freezers, retail food 

refrigeration, very low temperature 

refrigeration, non-mechanical heat 

transfer, vending machines, and 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps. The use conditions set 

requirements to ensure that these 

substitutes do not present significantly 

greater risk in the end-use than other 

substitutes that are currently or 

potentially available for that same enduse. This action is another regular 

update to EPA’s lists of acceptable 

substitutes through the SNAP program 

under the authority of CAA Section 612. 

This action responds to a number of 

SNAP submissions for four hydrocarbon 

refrigerants and HFC–32. Additionally, 

this action exempts from the prohibition 

under CAA Section 608 on venting, 

release, or disposal, the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that 

are listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in specific end-uses, on the 

basis of current evidence that their 

venting, release, or disposal does not 

pose a threat to the environment. Note, 

however, that other applicable 

environmental regulatory requirements 

still apply. For example, for those 

refrigerant substitutes listed in this 

action that contain volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) as defined in 40 CFR 

50.100(s), i.e., isobutane, propane, and 

R–441A,2 a state might adopt additional 

control strategies if necessary for an 

ozone nonattainment area to attain the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. 

With the exception of HFC–32, the 

refrigerants listed as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, in this action are 

hydrocarbons or blends consisting 

solely of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have been in use for over 15 

years in countries such as Germany, the 

United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan 

in household and commercial 

refrigerators and freezers. To a lesser 

extent, hydrocarbon refrigerants have 

also been used internationally in small 

AC units such as portable room air 

conditioners. 

Because hydrocarbon refrigerants 

have zero ozone depletion potential 

(ODP) and very low global warming 

potentials (GWPs) compared to most 

other refrigerants, many companies 

recently have expressed interest in 

using hydrocarbons in the United 

States. Also, some companies have 

reported improved energy efficiency 

with hydrocarbon refrigerants (A.S. 

Trust & Holdings, 2012; A/S Vestfrost, 

2012; CHEAA, 2013). 

In a final rule published in the 

Federal Register (FR) on December 20, 

2011, at 76 FR 78832, EPA’s SNAP 

program listed isobutane and R–441A as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers, 

and listed propane as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only). In this action, EPA is listing 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

additional end-uses. 

This final action lists HFC–32 

(difluoromethane, Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number [CAS Reg. No.] 

75–10–5) as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in room air conditioners for 

residential and light commercial AC and 

heat pumps end-use. There appears to 

be interest in using HFC–32 for many 

reasons, including its GWP of 675, 

which is considerably lower than the 

GWPs of hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

(HCFC)-22 (1,810) and most other HFCbased refrigerants (approximately 1,500 

to 4,000) currently used in this end-use. 

It also has mild flammability compared 

to hydrocarbon refrigerants. Mini-split 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3Unless otherwise stated, the ODP values used in 

this document are those published in Appendices 

A and B to Subpart A of 40 CFR part 82. For 

refrigerant blends, EPA has taken the ODPs for the 

component compounds and multiplied them by the 

weight fraction of each component in the blend to 

obtain an approximate ODP. 

4 GWPs for HFC–134a, HFC–32, the component 

HFCs comprising R–404A and R–410A, propane 

and ethane are listed in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. 

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This 

document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/

publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

GWPs for isobutane and R–441A were provided by 

the submitters to EPA and they are consistent with 

available information for their components and the 

range of GWPs found for other hydrocarbons in 

IPCC, 2007. For refrigerant blends, EPA has taken 

the 100-year integrated time horizon GWP from 

IPCC, 2007 for the component compounds and 

multiplied them by the weight fraction of each 

component in the blend to obtain an approximate 

GWP. Unless otherwise stated, GWPs stated in this 

document are 100-year integrated time horizon 

values taken from IPCC, 2007. 

systems using HFC–32 are now being 

sold in Japan and are being introduced 

in India and Indonesia. 

All of the end-uses in this final rule 

are for stationary refrigeration or AC. 

EPA previously issued several final 

rules addressing the use of flammable 

refrigerants in motor vehicle air 

conditioning (MVAC). On June 13, 1995, 

at 60 FR 31092, the Agency found all 

flammable substitutes to be 

unacceptable for use in MVAC unless 

specifically listed as acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, because of 

flammability risks and the lack of 

sufficient risk assessment and other 

relevant information to demonstrate safe 

use in that end-use at that time. Some 

of these risks are unique to motor 

vehicles. In recent years, EPA has listed 

three low-GWP refrigerants as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

MVAC systems (i.e., R–152a, R–1234yf, 

and R–744). Two of these refrigerants 

are flammable, although less flammable 

than hydrocarbons. Under 40 CFR part 

82, subpart G, Appendix B, all other 

flammable substitutes remain 

unacceptable for use in MVAC because 

EPA has not taken action to specifically 

list them as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions. 

As stated above, this action is being 

taken under the President’s Climate 

Action Plan. HFCs are accumulating 

rapidly in the atmosphere. For example, 

the atmospheric concentration of HFC– 

134a, the most abundant HFC, has 

increased by about 10% per year from 

2006 to 2012, and concentrations of 

HFC–143a and HFC–125 have risen over 

13% and 16% per year from 2007–2011, 

respectively (Montzka, 2012; NOAA, 

2013). 

The alternatives addressed in this 

action have GWPs significantly lower 

than both the ozone-depleting 

substances (ODS) and HFC substitute 

refrigerants in the end-uses in which 

they are being listed. ODS in the enduses in this final rule include 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12 (ODP 3 of 1 

and GWP of 10,900), R–13B1 (also 

known as bromotrifluoromethane or 

halon 1301, with ODP of 10 and GWP 

of 7,140), CFC–113 (ODP of 0.8 and 

GWP of 6,130), R–502 (a blend of CFC– 

115 and HCFC–22, with ODP of 0.334 

and GWP of 4,660), and HCFC–22 (ODP 

of 0.055 and GWP of 1,810). The GWPs 4

of the hydrocarbon refrigerants we are 

adding to the SNAP lists in this rule are 

less than 10, while HFCs listed as 

acceptable in the end-uses in this rule 

have GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,920. 

Thus, the listed refrigerants provide 

industry additional options with lower 

atmospheric impacts. In this 

rulemaking, however, EPA did not limit 

its review to atmospheric impacts, but 

evaluated each of the SNAP criteria for 

each substitute in each end-use 

addressed by this action. EPA then 

considered overall risk to human health 

and the environment for each substitute 

in comparison to other available or 

potentially available alternatives in the 

same end-uses. 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

This action lists the following 

refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, for use in specific end-uses 

within the refrigeration and AC sector: 

Ethane (R–170), HFC–32 (R–32), 

isobutane (R–600a), propane (R–290), 

and the hydrocarbon blend R–441A. 

Types of residential and light 

commercial AC equipment addressed in 

this action include window AC units; 

packaged terminal AC units and heat 

pumps; and portable room AC units. 

Types of refrigeration equipment 

include stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment, very low 

temperature freezers, thermosiphons 

(non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment), household refrigerators and 

freezers, and vending machines. 

Table 1 identifies industry subsectors 

that may wish to explore the use of 

ethane, HFC–32, R–441A, isobutane, 

and propane in these end-uses or that 

may work with equipment using these 

refrigerants in the future. 

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 ............. 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparations (e.g., Capsules, Liniments, Ointments, Tablets) Manufacturing. 

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 ............. 333415 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing. 

Industry ............. 443111 Appliance Stores: Household-type. 

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 ............. 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers. 

Industry ............. 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers. 

Industry ............. 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather a guide regarding 

entities likely to adopt, service or 

dispose of the substitutes that are being 

listed in this action. If you have any 

questions about whether this action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19457 

applies to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding section, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

D. What acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in the preamble? 

Below is a list of acronyms and 

abbreviations used in this preamble. 

AC—air conditioning 

ACGIH—American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

ACH—air changes per hour 

AEGL—acute exposure guideline level 

AHAM—Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

AHRI—Air Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute 

AIRAH—Australian Institute of Refrigeration, 

Air Conditioning and Heating 

ANSI—American National Standards 

Institute 

ARA—Australian Refrigeration Association 

ASHRAE—American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers 

BTU—British thermal unit 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAS Reg. No.—Chemical Abstracts Service 

Registry Number 

CARB—California Air Resources Board 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CFC—chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CHEAA—Chinese Household Electrical 

Appliance Association 

CMAQ—Community Multiscale Air Quality 

CRA—Congressional Review Act 

DOE—the United States Department of 

Energy 

EIA—Environmental Investigation AgencyU.S. 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EU—European Union 

FR—Federal Register 

ft—foot 

g—gram 

GHG—greenhouse gas 

GWP—global warming potential 

HCFC—hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HF—hydrogen fluoride 

HFC—hydrofluorocarbon 

HVACR—heating, ventilation, air 

conditioning and refrigeration 

ICF—ICF International, Inc. 

ICOR—ICOR International, Inc. 

IEC—International Electrotechnical 

Commission 

in.Hg—inches of mercury 

IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IPR—industrial process refrigeration 

ISRI—Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries 

JTG—Joint Task Group 

kg—kilogram 

kJ—kilojoule 

kPa—kilopascal 

lb—pound 

LFL—lower flammability limit 

m—meter 

mm—millimeter 

MMTCO2eq—million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalents 

MSDS—Material Safety Data Sheet 

MVAC—motor vehicle air conditioning 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

NAFEM—North American Association of 

Food Equipment Manufacturers 

NAICS—North American Industrial 

Classification System 

NIOSH—the United States National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health 

NOAA—the United States National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAEL—No Observed Adverse Effect Level 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OEM—original equipment manufacturer 

ODP—ozone depletion potential 

ODS—ozone-depleting substances 

OHA—Office of Hearing and Appeals 

OMB—the United States Office of 

Management and Budget 

OSHA—the United States Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

oz—ounce 

PPE—personal protective equipment 

PEL—permissible exposure limit 

PFC—perfluorocarbon 

PMS—Pantone Matching System 

ppb—parts per billion 

ppm—parts per million 

ppmv—parts per million by volume 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

psi—pounds per square inch 

PTAC—packaged terminal air conditioner 

PTHP—packaged terminal heat pump 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

REL—Recommended Exposure Limit 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RSES—Refrigeration Service Engineers 

Society 

SIP—State Implementation Plan 

SNAP—Significant New Alternatives Policy 

STEL—short-term exposure limit 

STP—Standards Technical Panels 

TFA—trifluoroacetic acid 

The Alliance—The Alliance for Responsible 

Atmospheric Policy 

TLV—threshold limit value 

TWA—time-weighted average 

UL—Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

VOC—volatile organic compounds 

II. How does the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program 

work? 

A. What are the statutory requirements 

and authority for the SNAP program? 

Section 612 of the 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 Section 612 are 

the following: 

1. Rulemaking 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

promulgate rules making it unlawful to 

replace any class I substance 

(chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, 

carbon tetrachloride, methyl 

chloroform, and 

hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II 

substance (HCFC) with any substitute 

that the Administrator determines may 

present adverse effects to human health 

or the environment where the 

Administrator has identified an 

alternative that (1) reduces the overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment and (2) is currently or 

potentially available. 

2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable 

Substitutes 

Section 612(c) requires EPA to 

publish a list of the substitutes 

unacceptable for specific uses and to 

publish a corresponding list of 

acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

The list of acceptable substitutes may be 

found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists, 

and the lists of ‘‘unacceptable,’’ 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions,’’ 

and ‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits’’ substitutes are found in the 

appendices to Subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82 as well as at www.epa.gov/ozone/

snap/lists. 

3. Petition Process 

Section 612(d) grants the right to any 

person to petition EPA to add a 

substance to, or delete a substance from, 

the lists published in accordance with 

Section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days 

to grant or deny a petition. Where the 

Agency grants the petition, EPA must 

publish the revised lists within an 

additional six months. 

4. 90-Day Notification 

Section 612(e) directs EPA to require 

any person who produces a chemical 

substitute for a class I substance to 

notify the Agency not less than 90 days 

before new or existing chemicals are 

introduced into interstate commerce for 

significant new uses as substitutes for a 

class I substance. The producer must 

also provide the Agency with the 

producer’s unpublished health and 

safety studies on such substitutes. 

5. Outreach 

Section 612(b)(1) states that the 

Administrator shall seek to maximize 

the use of federal research facilities and 

resources to assist users of class I and 

II substances in identifying and 

developing alternatives to the use of 

such substances in key commercial 

applications. 

6. Clearinghouse 

Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency 

to set up a public clearinghouse of 

alternative chemicals, product 

substitutes, and alternative 

manufacturing processes that are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, ‘‘interstate 

commerce’’ means the distribution or transportation 

of any product between one state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, and another 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any 

product in more than one state, territory, possession 

or District of Columbia. The entry points for which 

a product is introduced into interstate commerce 

are the release of a product from the facility in 

which the product was manufactured, the entry into 

a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer 

releases the product for sale or distribution, and at 

the site of United States Customs clearance. 

6As 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. 

7The SNAP regulations also include ‘‘pending,’’ 

referring to submissions for which EPA has not 

reached a determination under this provision. 

available for products and 

manufacturing processes which use 

class I and II substances. 

B. What is EPA’s regulation 

implementing Section 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 

eight sectors—refrigeration and AC; 

foam blowing; cleaning solvents; fire 

suppression and explosion protection; 

sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings 

and inks; and tobacco expansion—are 

the principal industrial sectors that 

historically consumed the largest 

volumes of ODS. 

Section 612 of the CAA instructs EPA 

to list as acceptable those substitutes 

that present a lower overall risk to 

human health and the environment as 

compared with other substitutes that are 

currently or potentially available for a 

specific use. 

C. How do the regulations for the SNAP 

program work? 

Under the SNAP regulations, anyone 

who plans to market or produce a 

substitute in one of the eight major 

industrial use sectors where class I or 

class II substances have been used must 

provide notice to the Agency, including 

health and safety information on the 

substitute, at least 90 days before 

introducing it into interstate commerce 

for significant new use as an alternative 

(40 CFR 82.176(a)). This requirement 

applies to the persons planning to 

introduce the substitute into interstate 

commerce,5 who typically are chemical 

manufacturers but may include 

importers, formulators, equipment 

manufacturers, and end users when they 

are responsible for introducing a 

substitute into commerce.6 The CAA 

and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 

82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute 

earlier than 90 days after notice has 

been provided to the Agency. EPA 

considers that notice has been received 

once EPA receives the submission and 

determines that the submission includes 

complete and adequate data (40 CFR 

82.180(a)). At that point, the SNAP 

review begins. 

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 7 (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use 

conditions and narrowed use limits are 

both considered ‘‘use restrictions’’ and 

are explained below. Substitutes that are 

deemed acceptable with no use 

restrictions (no use conditions or 

narrowed use limits) can be used for all 

applications in the relevant end-uses 

within the sector. Substitutes that are 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

may be used only in accordance with 

those restrictions. 

After reviewing a substitute, the 

Agency may make a determination that 

a substitute is acceptable only if certain 

conditions are met in the way that the 

substitute is used to minimize risks to 

human health and the environment. 

EPA describes such substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to use conditions.’’ 

Entities that use these substitutes 

without meeting the associated use 

conditions are in violation of Section 

612 of the CAA and EPA’s SNAP 

regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). 

For some substitutes, the Agency may 

permit a narrowed range of use within 

an end-use or sector. For example, the 

Agency may limit the use of a substitute 

to certain end-uses or specific 

applications within an industry sector. 

EPA describes these substitutes as 

‘‘acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits.’’ A person using a substitute that 

is acceptable subject to narrowed use 

limits in applications and end-uses that 

are not consistent with the narrowed 

use limit is using the substitute in an 

unacceptable manner and is in violation 

of Section 612 of the CAA and EPA’s 

SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)). 

The Agency publishes its SNAP 

program decisions in the Federal 

Register. EPA publishes proposed 

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 an 

opportunity to comment, before 

publishing final decisions. 

In contrast, EPA publishes decisions 

concerning substitutes that are deemed 

acceptable with no restrictions as 

‘‘notices of acceptability’’ or 

‘‘determinations of acceptability,’’ rather 

than as proposed and final rules. As 

described in the preamble to the rule 

initially implementing the SNAP 

program in the Federal Register at 59 

FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, EPA does 

not believe that rulemaking procedures 

are necessary to list alternatives that are 

acceptable without restrictions because 

such listings neither impose any 

sanction nor prevent anyone from using 

a substitute. 

Many SNAP listings include 

‘‘Comments’’ or ‘‘Further Information’’ 

to provide additional information on 

substitutes. Since this additional 

information is not part of the regulatory 

decision, these statements are not 

binding for use of the substitute under 

the SNAP program. However, regulatory 

requirements so listed may be binding 

under other regulatory programs (e.g., 

worker protection regulations 

promulgated by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA)). 

The ‘‘Further Information’’ identified in 

the listing does not necessarily include 

all other legal obligations pertaining to 

the use of the substitute. While the 

items listed are not legally binding 

under the SNAP program, EPA 

encourages users of substitutes to apply 

all statements in the ‘‘Further 

Information’’ column in their use of 

these substitutes. In many instances, the 

information simply refers to sound 

operating practices that have already 

been identified in existing industry and/ 

or building codes or standards. Thus 

many of the statements, if adopted, 

would not require the affected user to 

make significant changes in existing 

operating practices. 

D. Where do I find additional 

information about the SNAP program? 

For copies of the comprehensive 

SNAP lists of substitutes or additional 

information on SNAP, refer to EPA’s 

Ozone Depletion Web site at: 

www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more 

information on the Agency’s process for 

administering the SNAP program or 

criteria for evaluation of substitutes, 

refer to the SNAP final rulemaking in 

the Federal Register at 59 FR 13044 on 

March 18, 1994, codified at 40 CFR part 

82, Subpart G. A complete chronology 

of SNAP decisions and the appropriate 

citations are found at: www.epa.gov/

ozone/snap/chron.html. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19459 

8Sometimes conversion refrigerant substitutes are 

inaccurately referred to as ‘‘drop in’’ replacements. 

III. What action is the Agency taking? 

A. Listing Decisions: Substitutes and 

End-Uses 

In this action, EPA is listing the 

following refrigerants as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in the 

identified end-uses. 

1. Retail food refrigeration. EPA finds 

isobutane (also referred to as R–600a) 

and the hydrocarbon blend R–441A 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, as 

substitutes in retail food refrigeration 

(new stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment only). The use 

conditions require the following: 

i. The quantity of the substitute 

refrigerant (i.e., ‘‘charge size’’) must not 

exceed 150 g (5.29 oz); 

ii. 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’’ 8 refrigerant for existing 

equipment; 

iii. These refrigerants may be used 

only in stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment that meets all 

requirements listed in Supplement SB 

to the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, 

dated November 24, 2010. In cases 

where this final rule includes 

requirements more stringent than those 

of the 10th edition of UL Standard 471, 

the appliance would need to meet the 

requirements of the final rule in place 

of the requirements in the UL Standard; 

iv. The refrigerator or freezer must 

have red Pantone Matching System 

(PMS) #185 marked pipes, hoses, or 

other devices through which the 

refrigerant passes, to indicate the use of 

a flammable refrigerant. This color must 

be present at all service ports and other 

parts of the system where service 

puncturing or other actions creating an 

opening from the refrigerant circuit to 

the atmosphere might be expected and 

must extend a minimum of one (1) inch 

in both directions from such locations. 

v. The following markings, or the 

equivalent, must be provided and must 

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.’’ This marking must 

be provided on or near any evaporators 

that can be contacted by the consumer. 

(b) ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service 

Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant 

Tubing.’’ This marking must be located 

near the machine compartment. 

(c) ‘‘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.’’ This marking must be 

located near the machine compartment. 

(d) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Dispose of Properly In 

Accordance With Federal Or Local 

Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant 

Used.’’ This marking must be provided 

on the exterior of the refrigeration 

equipment. 

(e) ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion Due To Puncture Of 

Refrigerant Tubing; Follow Handling 

Instructions Carefully. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’ This marking must 

be provided near all exposed refrigerant 

tubing. 

All of these markings must be in 

letters no less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) 

high. 

Retail food refrigeration includes the 

refrigeration systems, including cold 

storage cases, designed to chill food or 

keep it at a cold temperature for 

commercial sale. Stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment includes 

appliances that use a sealed hermetic 

compressor and for which all 

refrigerant-containing components, 

including but not limited to the 

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 the addition 

or removal of refrigerant when placed 

into initial operation. Stand-alone 

equipment is used to chill or to store 

chilled beverages or frozen products 

(e.g., reach-in beverage coolers, standalone ice cream cabinets, and wine 

coolers in commercial settings). 

This acceptability decision does not 

apply to large commercial refrigeration 

systems such as, but not limited to, 

remote direct expansion refrigeration 

systems typically found in 

supermarkets. This acceptability 

decision also does not apply to walk-in 

coolers. The SNAP submission did not 

apply to these types of systems. 

Moreover, these types of equipment 

typically require larger charges than 

those established in this use condition 

for the end-use addressed in this rule 

and are sufficiently different that we 

would need additional information 

before making a listing decision. 

2. Very low temperature refrigeration 

and non-mechanical heat transfer. EPA 

finds ethane (also referred to as R–170) 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment and in non-mechanical heat 

transfer, subject to the same use 

conditions described above for 

isobutane and R–441A in stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment. 

Very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment is intended to maintain 

temperatures considerably lower than 

for refrigeration of food—for example, 

¥80 °C (¥170 °F) or lower. Examples of 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment include medical freezers and 

freeze-dryers, which generally require 

extremely reliable refrigeration cycles to 

maintain low temperatures and must 

meet stringent technical standards. In 

some cases, very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment may use a 

refrigeration system with two refrigerant 

loops or with a direct expansion 

refrigeration loop coupled with an 

alternative refrigeration technology (e.g., 

Stirling cycle). This allows a greater 

range of temperatures and may reduce 

the overall refrigerant charge. 

There is no U.S. standard that we are 

aware of that applies specifically to very 

low temperature refrigeration or nonmechanical heat transfer. The submitter 

of information for use of ethane in very 

low temperature refrigeration has 

indicated that UL has tested their 

equipment for compliance with the UL 

471 Standard for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, which 

addresses stand-alone commercial 

refrigerators and freezers. In this final 

rule, we are requiring compliance with 

the UL 471 Standard as one of the 

conditions for use of ethane in very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment. 

This submission also addressed the 

use of ethane in a type of nonmechanical heat transfer equipment 

called a thermosiphon. Non-mechanical 

heat transfer involves cooling systems 

that rely on convection to remove heat 

from an area, rather than mechanical 

refrigeration. A thermosiphon is a type 

of heat transfer system that relies on 

natural convection currents, as opposed 

to using a mechanical pump. This final 

rule lists ethane as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, for use in nonmechanical heat transfer. The use 

conditions include a requirement to 

meet Supplement B to the UL 471 

Standard and a charge limit of 150 g. We 

note that some other types of nonmechanical heat transfer equipment 

would be expected to present different 

technical issues than a thermosiphon in 

a freezer and are not part of this 

decision, e.g., equipment designed for 

cooling the engine compartment of 

heavy duty vehicles, organic Rankine 

cycle equipment, or geothermal systems. 

3. Household refrigerators and 

freezers. EPA finds propane (also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

referred to as R–290) acceptable, subject 

to use conditions, as a substitute in 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

combination refrigerator/freezers. The 

use conditions require the following: 

i. The charge size for any household 

refrigerator, freezer, or combination 

refrigerator and freezer for each circuit 

using R–290 must not exceed 57 g (2.01 

oz); 

ii. This refrigerant may be used only 

in new equipment specifically designed 

and clearly identified for the 

refrigerant—i.e., none of these 

substitutes may be used as a conversion 

or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment; 

iii. This substitute may be used only 

in equipment that meets all 

requirements in Supplement SA to the 

10th edition of UL Standard 250, dated 

August 25, 2000. In cases where this 

final rule includes requirements more 

stringent than those of the 10th edition 

of UL Standard 250, the appliance 

would need to meet the requirements of 

the final rule in place of the 

requirements in the UL Standard; 

iv. The refrigerator or freezer must 

have red PMS #185 marked pipes, 

hoses, and other devices through which 

the refrigerant passes to indicate the use 

of a flammable refrigerant; 

v. Permanent markings must be 

provided on the equipment, as 

described above for stand-alone 

commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

All of these markings must be in letters 

no less than 6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. 

Household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerator/freezers are 

intended primarily for residential use, 

although they may be used outside the 

home. Household freezers only offer 

storage space at freezing temperatures, 

unlike household refrigerators. Products 

with both a refrigerator and freezer in a 

single unit are most common. Wine 

coolers used in residential settings are 

considered part of this end-use. EPA 

previously found the flammable 

hydrocarbon refrigerants isobutane and 

R–441A acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in this end-use (December 

20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832, codified at 

Appendix R of Subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82). 

4. Vending machines. EPA finds R– 

441A, isobutane, and propane as 

acceptable substitutes in vending 

machines, subject to the same use 

conditions described above for standalone retail food refrigeration 

equipment, except that paragraph iii. 

reads as follows: 

Equipment must meet all 

requirements of Supplement SA to the 

7th edition of UL Standard 541, 

‘‘Refrigerated Vending Machines,’’ dated 

December 30, 2011 (instead of 

Supplement SB to the 10th edition of 

UL 471). Supplement SA specifically 

addressing flammable refrigerants is 

very similar to the Supplement SB in 

the UL 471 Standard for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers, and thus, 

similar requirements apply to these 

types of refrigeration equipment. In UL 

541, the relevant references on 

equipment markings for flammable 

refrigerants in Supplement A are 

Sections SA 6.1.2–SA 6.1.5. 

Vending machines are self-contained 

units for refrigerating beverages or food 

which dispense goods that must be kept 

cold or frozen. This end-use differs from 

other retail food refrigeration because 

goods are dispensed, rather than 

allowing the consumer to reach in to 

grab a beverage or food product. The 

design of the refrigeration system of a 

vending machine is similar to that of a 

self-contained commercial refrigerator 

or freezer. Typically the difference lies 

in how payment for goods is made and 

in the selection mechanisms found in 

vending machines but not in selfcontained commercial refrigeratorfreezers, and possibly the outer casing 

(e.g., glass doors and open, reach-in 

designs are generally used in selfcontained commercial refrigeratorfreezers whereas glass wall and other 

types of casings are used for vending 

machines). We are aware that for 

vending machines, it is possible to 

detach easily and replace the 

refrigeration circuit from the outer 

casing of the equipment. In such a 

situation, replacing the old refrigeration 

circuit with a new one within the old 

casing would be considered ‘‘new’’ 

equipment and not a retrofit of the old, 

existing equipment. 

5. Residential and light commercial 

AC and heat pumps. EPA finds propane 

(also known as R–290), difluoromethane 

(also known as HFC–32 or R–32), and 

R–441A acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, as substitutes in residential 

and light commercial AC for selfcontained room air conditioners, 

including PTAC units and PTHPs, 

window AC units, and portable AC 

units designed for use in a single room. 

The use conditions require the 

following: 

i. 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; 

ii. These refrigerants may be used 

only in air conditioners that meet all 

requirements listed in Supplement SA 

to the 8th edition, dated August 2, 2012, 

of UL Standard 484, ‘‘Room Air 

Conditioners.’’ In cases where this final 

rule includes requirements more 

stringent than those of the 8th edition of 

UL Standard 484, the appliance would 

need to meet the requirements of the 

final rule in place of the requirements 

in the UL Standard; 

iii. UL 484 includes charge limits for 

room air conditioners and adherence to 

those charge limits would normally be 

confirmed by the installer. In addition 

to requiring the charge limits in the UL 

484 Standard, EPA is requiring the 

following charge size limits, adherence 

to which must be confirmed by the 

original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM). In cases where the charge size 

limit listed is different from those 

determined by UL 484, the smaller of 

the two charge sizes would apply. For 

a review of how these charge size limits 

were derived, see ‘‘Derivation of Charge 

Limits for Room Air Conditioners,’’ 

(EPA, 2015) in the docket. The charge 

size limit must be determined based on 

the type of equipment, the alternative 

refrigerant used, and the normal rated 

capacity of the unit. The limits are 

presented in Tables 2 through 6 below 

in Section III.C.3, ‘‘Charge size,’’ and in 

Tables A, B, C, D and E of the regulatory 

text at the end of this preamble. 

iv. The air conditioner must have red 

PMS #185 marked pipes, hoses, or other 

devices through which the refrigerant 

passes to indicate the use of a 

flammable refrigerant. This color must 

be present at all service ports and other 

parts of the system where service 

puncturing or other actions creating an 

opening from the refrigerant circuit to 

the atmosphere might be expected and 

must extend a minimum of one (1) inch 

in both directions from such locations; 

v. The following markings, or the 

equivalent, must be provided and must 

be permanent: 

(a) On the outside of the air 

conditioner: ‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or 

Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. 

To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service 

Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant 

Tubing.’’ 

(b) On the outside of the air 

conditioner: ‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire 

or Explosion. Dispose of Properly In 

Accordance With Federal Or Local 

Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant 

Used.’’ 

(c) On the inside of the air conditioner 

near the compressor: ‘‘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) For portable air conditioners, 

PTAC and PTHP, on the outside of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19461 

9EPA has received submissions for HFC–32 and 

the hydrocarbon blends R–441A and R–443A, and 

no other flammable refrigerants, in new unitary 

central air conditioners.This action does not 

address flammable refrigerants in unitary central air 

conditioners. Introduction into interstate commerce 

of refrigerants without giving timely and adequate 

notice to EPA is in violation of Section 612(e) of 

the CAA and the SNAP regulations at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart G. 

10Packaged terminal air conditioners are 

intended for use in a single room, or potentially for 

two rooms next to each other, and use no external 

refrigerant lines. Typical applications include motel 

or dormitory air conditioners. 

11EPA notes that under the SNAP program, we 

review and list refrigerants with specific 

compositions (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994). To the 

extent possible, we follow ASHRAE’s designations 

for refrigerants. Blends of refrigerants must be 

reviewed separately. For example, we consider each 

blend of propane with isobutane to be a different 

and unique refrigerant, and each would require 

separate submission, review and listing. Thus, 

blends of the refrigerants that we are listing as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this rule 

are not acceptable. 

product: ‘‘WARNING: Appliance shall 

be installed, operated and stored in a 

room with a floor area larger than ‘‘X’’ 

m2 (Y ft2).’’ The value ‘‘X’’ must be 

determined using the minimum room 

size in m2 calculated using Appendix F 

of UL 484. The evaporator must remain 

no higher than 0.6 m above the floor. 

(e) For window air conditioners, on 

the outside of the product: ‘‘WARNING: 

Appliance shall be installed, operated 

and stored in a room with a floor area 

larger than ‘‘X’’ m2 (Y ft2).’’ The value 

‘‘X’’ must be determined using the 

minimum room size in m2 calculated 

using Appendix F of UL 484. The 

evaporator must remain no higher than 

1.06 m above the floor. All of these 

markings must be in letters no less than 

6.4 mm (1⁄4 inch) high. 

The residential and light commercial 

AC and heat pumps end-use includes 

equipment for cooling air in individual 

rooms, in single-family homes, and 

sometimes in small commercial 

buildings. This end-use differs from 

commercial comfort AC, which uses 

chillers that cool water that is then used 

to cool air throughout a large 

commercial building, such as an office 

building or hotel. Examples of 

equipment for residential and light 

commercial AC and heat pumps 

include: 

• Central air conditioners, also called 

unitary AC or unitary split systems. 

These systems include an outdoor unit 

with a condenser and a compressor, 

refrigerant lines, an indoor unit with an 

evaporator, and ducts to carry cooled air 

throughout a building. Central heat 

pumps are similar but offer the choice 

to either heat or cool the indoor space. 

These systems are not addressed in this 

rule.9

• Multi-split air conditioners. These 

systems include one or more outdoor 

unit(s) with a condenser and a 

compressor and multiple indoor units, 

each of which is connected to the 

outdoor unit by refrigerant lines. These 

systems are not addressed in this rule. 

• Mini-split air conditioners. These 

systems include an outdoor unit with a 

condenser and a compressor and a 

single indoor unit that is connected to 

the outdoor unit by refrigerant lines. 

Cooled air exits directly from the indoor 

unit rather than being carried through 

ducts. These systems are not addressed 

in this rule. 

• Window air conditioners. These are 

self-contained units that fit in a window 

with the condenser extending outside 

the window. These types of units are 

regulated under this rule. 

• PTAC and PTHP. These are selfcontained units that consist of a 

separate, un-encased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies mounted 

through a wall.10 These types of units 

are regulated under this rule. 

• Portable room air conditioners. 

These are self-contained, factory-sealed, 

single package units that are designed to 

be moved easily from room to room and 

are intended to provide supplemental 

cooling within a room. These units 

typically have wheels or casters for 

portability and, under the UL 484 

Standard for room air conditioners, 

must have a fan which operates 

continuously when the unit is on. 

Portable room air conditioners may 

contain an exhaust hose that can be 

placed through a window or door to 

eject heat to the outside. These types of 

units are regulated under this rule. 

Of these types of equipment, window 

air conditioners, PTAC, PTHP, and 

portable room air conditioners are selfcontained equipment with the 

condenser, compressor, evaporator, and 

tubing all within casing in a single unit. 

These units all fall under the scope of 

the UL 484 Standard for room air 

conditioners. In contrast, unitary split 

systems, multi-split systems and minisplit systems have an outdoor condenser 

that is separated from an indoor unit. 

Compared to split systems, selfcontained equipment typically has 

smaller charge sizes, has fewer locations 

that are prone to leak, and is less likely 

to require servicing by a technician, 

thereby causing refrigerant releases. A 

lower risk of refrigerant releases and a 

potential for smaller releases and lower 

concentration releases results in lower 

risk that flammable refrigerant could be 

ignited. Thus, self-contained air 

conditioners and heat pumps using a 

flammable refrigerant have lower risk 

for fire than split systems using a 

flammable refrigerant. EPA notes that 

split system AC systems present 

different technical challenges than selfcontained room AC equipment and are 

not part of this decision. 

6. Summary. In summary, EPA is 

listing ethane, isobutane, propane, 

HFC–32, and R–441A as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, as substitute 

refrigerants in certain refrigeration and 

AC end-uses. It is legal to use those 

refrigerants in the specified types of 

equipment under the conditions 

identified above. Use in the specified 

types of equipment that is not consistent 

with the use conditions is a violation of 

CAA Section 612 and EPA’s 

implementing regulations for the SNAP 

program. Both the equipment 

manufacturers and the end users must 

comply with these use conditions. 

The regulatory text of our decisions 

for the end-uses discussed above 

appears in tables at the end of this 

preamble. This text will be codified at 

40 CFR part 82 Subpart G. We note that 

there may be other legal obligations 

pertaining to the manufacture, use, 

handling, and disposal of hydrocarbons 

that are not included in the information 

listed in the tables (e.g., Section 608 

prohibition on venting, releasing, or 

disposing of refrigerant substitutes or 

Department of Transportation 

requirements for transport of flammable 

gases). 

B. What are ethane, isobutane, 

propane, HFC–32, R–441A, and the 

ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant 

flammability? 

Ethane, isobutane, and propane are 

hydrocarbons and R–441A is a 

hydrocarbon blend. Hydrocarbons are 

highly flammable organic compounds 

made up of hydrogen and carbon. 

Ethane has two carbons, the chemical 

formula of C2H6, and the CAS Reg. No. 

74–84–0. Propane has three carbons, the 

formula C3H8, and the CAS Reg. No. 74– 

98–6. Isobutane has four carbons, the 

formula C4H10, also written as 

CH(CH3)2CH3 to distinguish it from nbutane, and the CAS Reg. No. 75–28–5. 

As refrigerants, ethane, propane, and 

isobutane can be referred to by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) designations R– 

170, R–290, and R–600a, respectively. 

R–441A, also known by the trade name 

‘‘HCR–188C,’’ is a hydrocarbon blend 11

consisting of 55% propane, 36% nbutane, 6% isobutane, and 3% ethane 

by weight. 

HFC–32 is a mildly flammable organic 

compound made up of hydrogen, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19462 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

12This is intended to mean a completely new 

refrigeration circuit containing a new evaporator, 

condenser and refrigerant tubing. 

carbon, and fluorine with the chemical 

formula CF2H2 (CAS Reg. No. 75–10–5). 

The American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2010 assigns a safety group 

classification for each refrigerant which 

consists of two alphanumeric characters 

(e.g., A2 or B1). The capital letter 

indicates the toxicity and the numeral 

denotes the flammability. ASHRAE 

classifies Class A refrigerants as 

refrigerants for which toxicity has not 

been identified at concentrations less 

than or equal to 400 parts per million 

(ppm) by volume, based on data used to 

determine threshold limit value-timeweighted average (TLV–TWA) or 

consistent indices. Class B signifies 

refrigerants for which there is evidence 

of toxicity at concentrations below 400 

ppm by volume, based on data used to 

determine TLV–TWA or consistent 

indices. The refrigerants are also 

assigned a flammability classification of 

1, 2, or 3. Tests are conducted in 

accordance with ASTM E681 using a 

spark ignition source at 60 °C and 101.3 

kPa (ASHRAE, 2010). Figure 1 in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 15–2007 uses the 

same safety group but limits its 

concentration to 3,400 ppm. 

The flammability classification ‘‘1’’ is 

given to refrigerants that, when tested, 

show no flame propagation. The 

flammability classification ‘‘2’’ is given 

to refrigerants that, when tested, exhibit 

flame propagation, have a heat of 

combustion less than 19,000 kJ/kg 

(8,174 British thermal units (BTU)/lb), 

and have a lower flammability limit 

(LFL) greater than 0.10 kg/m3. 

Refrigerants within flammability 

classification 2 may optionally be 

designated in the LFL subclass ‘‘2L’’ if 

they have a maximum burning velocity 

of 10 cm/s or lower when tested at 

23.0 °C and 101.3 kPa. The flammability 

classification ‘‘3’’ is given to refrigerants 

that, when tested, exhibit flame 

propagation and that either have a heat 

of combustion of 19,000 kJ/kg (8,174 

BTU/lb) or greater or an LFL of 0.10 kg/ 

m3 or lower. Thus, refrigerants with 

flammability classification ‘‘3’’ are 

highly flammable, while those with 

flammability classification ‘‘2’’ are less 

flammable and those with flammability 

classification ‘‘2L’’ are mildly 

flammable. For both toxicity and 

flammability classifications, refrigerant 

blends are designated based on the 

worst-case of fractionation determined 

for the blend (which may be different 

when evaluating toxicity than when 

evaluating flammability). 

Using these safety group 

classifications, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

34–2010 categorizes ethane, isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A in the A3 Safety 

Group and categorizes HFC–32 in the 

A2L Safety Group. 

C. Use Conditions 

EPA is listing ethane, isobutane, 

propane, HFC–32, and R–441A as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the specified end-uses. The use 

conditions include conditions 

consistent with industry standards, 

limits on charge size, and requirements 

for warnings and markings on 

equipment to inform consumers and 

technicians of potential flammability 

hazards. The listings with specific use 

conditions are intended to allow for the 

use of these flammable refrigerants in a 

manner that will ensure they do not 

pose a greater risk to human health or 

the environment than other substitutes 

that are currently or potentially 

available. 

1. New Equipment Only; Not Intended 

for Use as a Retrofit Alternative 

The refrigerants listed in this final 

rule may be used only in new 

equipment 12 designed to address 

concerns unique to flammable 

refrigerants—i.e., none of these 

substitutes may be used as a conversion 

or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment. The flammable refrigerants 

were not submitted under the SNAP 

program to be used in retrofitted 

equipment, and no information was 

provided on how to address hazards of 

flammable refrigerants when used in 

equipment that was designed for nonflammable refrigerants. Introduction 

into interstate commerce of these 

refrigerants for use in existing 

equipment, or for other end-uses, 

without giving timely and adequate 

notice to EPA is in violation of Section 

612(e) of the CAA and the SNAP 

regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 

In addition, use of these refrigerants in 

existing equipment is in violation of 

Section 612(c) of the CAA and the 

corresponding SNAP regulations at 40 

CFR part 82, subpart G. 

2. Standards 

The flammable refrigerants may be 

used only in equipment that meets all 

requirements in the relevant 

supplements for flammable refrigerants 

in certain applicable UL standards for 

refrigeration and AC equipment. 

Specifically, the cited supplements 

include Supplement SB to UL 471 10th 

edition for commercial refrigerators and 

freezers (including stand-alone freezers 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER10AP15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19463 

for very low temperature refrigeration), 

Supplement SA to UL 250 10th edition 

(for household refrigerators and 

freezers), Supplement SA to UL 541 7th 

edition for refrigerated vending 

machines, and Supplement SA to UL 

484 8th edition for room air 

conditioners. 

UL has tested equipment for 

flammability risk in household and 

retail food refrigeration, vending 

machines, and room AC. Further, UL 

has developed acceptable safety 

standards including requirements for 

construction, for markings, and for 

performance tests concerning refrigerant 

leakage, ignition of switching 

components, surface temperature of 

parts, and component strength after 

being scratched. These standards were 

developed in an open and consensusbased approach, with the assistance of 

experts in the refrigeration and AC 

industry as well as experts involved in 

assessing the safety of products. While 

similar standards exist from other 

bodies such as the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), this 

rule relies on UL standards because they 

are most applicable and recognized by 

the U.S. market. 

i. Incorporation by Reference 

This approach is the same as that in 

our previous rule on flammable 

refrigerants (December 20, 2011 at 76 FR 

78832), through which EPA 

incorporated by reference to 40 CFR part 

82, appendix R to subpart G, 

Supplement SA to UL 250 10th edition 

and Supplement SB to UL 471 10th 

edition. Through this action the EPA is 

incorporating by reference relevant 

supplements from two additional UL 

standards: Supplement SA to UL 541 

7th edition and Supplement SA to UL 

484 8th edition. These supplements are 

summarized elsewhere in this 

document. 

The UL Standards are available for 

purchase by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 

Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; 

Email: orders@comm-2000.com; 

Telephone: 1–888–853–3503 in the U.S. 

or Canada (other countries dial +1–415– 

352–2168); Internet address: http://

ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ or 

www.comm-2000.com. The cost of a 

single standard is $400–$500 for 

electronic and $500-$630 for hardcopy. 

An outline of UL 484 may be purchased 

for $150 electronically or $175 for a 

hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription 

service to the Standards Certification 

Customer Library (SCCL) that allows 

unlimited access to their standards and 

related documents. The cost of 

obtaining these standards is not a 

significant financial burden for 

equipment manufacturers and purchase 

is not required for those selling, 

installing and servicing the equipment. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL 

standards being incorporated by 

reference are reasonably available. 

3. Charge Size 

The refrigerants listed in this final 

rule are subject to use conditions that 

limit the amount of refrigerant allowed 

in each type of appliance. Consistent 

with previous actions, EPA believes it is 

necessary to set limits on charge size in 

order for these refrigerants not to pose 

a risk to human health or the 

environment that is greater than the risk 

posed by other available substitutes. 

These limits will reduce the risk to 

workers and consumers since under 

worst-case scenario analyses, a leak of 

the maximum charge sizes allowed 

under the use conditions did not result 

in concentrations of the refrigerant that 

met or exceeded the LFL, as explained 

below in Section IV.B, ‘‘Flammability.’’ 

The limitations on refrigerant charge 

size for household and stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment, 

vending machines, and room AC units 

reflect the UL 250, UL 471, UL 541 and 

UL 484 Standards. As discussed above 

in Section III.C.2, ‘‘Standards,’’ we 

believe UL standards are most 

applicable to the U.S. market and offer 

requirements developed by a consensus 

of experts. EPA is requiring a charge 

size not to exceed 57 g (2.01 oz) for 

household refrigerators and freezers, not 

to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for retail food 

refrigeration in stand-alone units, and 

not to exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) for vending 

machines. The maximum charge size 

limit for room AC units varies, as 

discussed below. To place these 

quantities in context, the charge size of 

a disposable lighter is approximately 

30 g (1.06 oz). 

The UL 250 Standard for household 

refrigerators and freezers limits the 

amount of refrigerant that may leak to 

no more than 50 g (1.76 oz). EPA is 

requiring a charge size of 57 g (2.01 oz) 

to allow for up to 7 g (0.25 oz) of 

refrigerant that might be solubilized in 

the oil (and assumed not to leak or 

immediately vaporize with the 

refrigerant in case of a leak). EPA bases 

this estimate on information received 

from a manufacturer of hydrocarbonbased refrigerator-freezers (see EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0286–0033 on 

www.regulations.gov). 

UL Standards 471 (retail food 

refrigeration) and 541 (vending 

machines) limit the amount of 

refrigerant leaked to 150 g (5.29 oz). 

Furthermore, the charge size limit for 

A3 refrigerants (for retail food 

refrigeration) is in line with the IEC 

60335–2–89 Standard for commercial 

appliances, which has a charge size 

limit of 150 g (5.29 oz). 

As noted above, EPA is requiring a 

varying charge size for room AC units. 

The maximum charge must be no 

greater than the amount calculated for a 

given sized space according to 

Appendix F to Supplement SA of UL 

Standard 484. This section of the UL 

standard uses a formula for the charge 

of a fixed room air conditioner based 

upon the size of the space where the 

refrigerant may escape and the LFL of 

the refrigerant. Height of the mounting 

of the unit is also a variable, because 

empirical studies have found that 

leaked refrigerant is more likely to mix 

thoroughly with the surrounding air, 

rather than pooling, when the AC unit 

is mounted higher. The formula is as 

follows: 

Where, 

Mmax is the maximum charge size allowed for 

the space, in kg, 

LFL is the lower flammability limit of the 

refrigerant in kg/m3, 

h0 is the installation height of the indoor unit 

in m (0.6 m for an AC unit on the floor, 

1.0 m for an AC unit in a window, 1.8 

m for a wall-mounted AC unit, and 2.2 

m for a ceiling-mounted AC unit), and 

A is the floor area of the room, in m2. 

The equipment manufacturer would 

then design AC units to be used in 

rooms with a minimum size and would 

label the minimum room size on the 

equipment. 

In addition to the formula above, UL 

484 has a requirement that the 

maximum charge for a fixed room air 

conditioner may not exceed the amount 

calculated using the following formula: 

m2 = (26 m3) × LFL 

Where, 

m2 is the maximum charge size allowed, in 

kg, 

26 m3 is a constant, and 

LFL is the lower flammability limit of the 

refrigerant in kg/m3. 

That formula sets maximum limits on 

refrigerant in a room air conditioner. 

With the A3 refrigerants, the maximum 

value is 1 kg. 

In addition, Appendix F of UL 484 

sets alternative requirements for nonfixed units such as portable air 

conditioners. Portable air conditioners 

are usually located on the floor of a 

room, and thus, if they followed the 

formula for fixed appliances, they 

would be assumed to have a height of 

0.6 m, and would have relatively low 

charge sizes. However, Sections F.1.7 

uses a different formula that allows for 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER10AP15.001</GPH>
19464 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

a potentially larger charge size for nonfixed units. Sections F.1.8 through 

F.1.14 of UL 484 set additional 

requirements for non-fixed units to 

further reduce flammability risk. Among 

these provisions are requirements for a 

drop test, a vibration test, and a 

continuously operating fan, which 

would ensure that any leaked refrigerant 

is rapidly mixed and its concentration 

reduced. Thus, a different approach is 

used in the formula for determining 

charge sizes of non-fixed units; for 

example, the height of 0.6 m that might 

otherwise be assumed for PTACs is not 

used for a portable unit. 

Although using a formula to 

determine the maximum charge size and 

minimum room size is appropriate from 

an engineering perspective, it does not 

ensure that a consumer will select an 

appropriate AC unit for the size of their 

room. It is likely that some consumers 

may be unaware of the exact size of the 

room to be cooled and thus may select 

an inappropriately sized AC unit that 

increases the flammability risk. Or, a 

consumer may believe that a larger, 

more powerful AC unit will provide 

better, faster cooling and therefore may 

select an inappropriately sized AC unit 

that increases the flammability risk. To 

address these concerns, EPA is 

supplementing the charge size 

guidelines in Appendix F of UL 484 

with a use condition that restricts the 

maximum refrigerant charge of 

equipment based upon the cooling 

capacity needed, in BTU/hour. 

Equipment manufacturers are 

responsible for designing equipment 

below a maximum charge size 

consistent with the intended cooling 

capacity. This will allow the 

manufacturer, who is better positioned 

than the consumer, to address these 

challenges. Placing the responsibility on 

the manufacturer to design equipment 

that restricts the maximum refrigerant 

charge based upon the cooling capacity 

needed also provides a better means for 

EPA to ensure compliance with the use 

conditions, and thus to ensure that the 

risk to human health will not be greater 

than that posed by other available 

substitutes. We believe that these 

requirements, in combination with the 

other use conditions and commonly 

found informational materials, provide 

sufficient safeguards against instances of 

consumers selecting inappropriatelysized equipment. 

EPA has based its charge limits upon 

appropriate capacity needs for an area to 

be cooled and the requirements for 

refrigerant charge relative to room size 

in Appendix F of UL 484, discussed 

above. A document in the docket 

describes this relationship in tables in a 

spreadsheet (EPA, 2015). The charge 

limits for each refrigerant by equipment 

type and mounting location are as 

follows: 

TABLE 2—WINDOW AC UNITS * 

[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used] 

Refrigerant 

Charge size in kg 

(by associated capacity in BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000 

R–32 .................................. 1.73 2.12 2.74 3.00 3.24 3.47 3.68 4.07 4.59 5.48 6.01 6.49 6.72 7.76 

R–290 ................................ 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.57 

R–441A ............................. 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.54 0.63 

* Assumes the evaporator is at least 1 m, but not more than 1.8 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 

TABLE 3—PACKAGED TERMINAL AC UNITS AND HEAT PUMPS * 

[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used] 

Refrigerant 

Charge size in kg 

(by associated capacity in BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000 

R–32 .................................. 1.04 1.27 1.65 1.80 1.95 2.08 2.21 2.44 2.75 3.29 3.60 3.89 4.03 4.65 

R–290 ................................ 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.34 

R–441A ............................. 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.38 

* Assumes the evaporator is at least 0.6 m, but not more than 1.0 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated 

between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 

TABLE 4—WALL-MOUNTED AC UNITS * WITH COMPRESSOR 1.8 m ABOVE FLOOR LEVEL * 

[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used] 

Refrigerant 

Charge size in kg 

(by associated capacity in BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000 

R–32 .................................. 3.12 3.82 4.94 5.41 5.84 6.24 6.62 7.32 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 

R–290 ................................ 0.23 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.80 0.86 0.89 1.00 

R–441A ............................. 0.25 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.59 0.67 0.80 0.88 0.95 0.98 1.00 

* Assumes the evaporator is at least 1.8 m, but not more than 2.2 m, above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated 

between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19465 

TABLE 5—CEILING-MOUNTED AC UNITS * 

[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used] 

Refrigerant 

Charge size in kg 

(by associated capacity in BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000 

R–32 .................................. 3.82 4.67 6.03 6.61 7.14 7.63 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.96 

R–290 ................................ 0.28 0.34 0.44 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.60 0.66 0.74 0.89 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 

R–441A ............................. 0.31 0.38 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.73 0.82 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

* Assumes the evaporator is at least 2.2 m above the floor. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller 

and larger capacities listed in the table. 

TABLE 6—PORTABLE ROOM AC UNITS * 

[Maximum charge size by unit capacity and refrigerant used] 

Refrigerant 

Charge size in kg 

(by associated capacity in BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 30,000 34,000 

R–32 .................................. 1.56 2.35 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 

R–290 ................................ 0.19 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 

R–441A ............................. 0.21 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 

* Assumes equipment meeting UL 484 requirements for non-fixed equipment. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between 

the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 

In cases where the rated capacity 

exceeds the maximum shown on the 

table, the maximum charge size in the 

table for that refrigerant applies. In cases 

where the normal rated capacity lies 

between two values listed next to each 

other in the table, the maximum charge 

size should be determined based on a 

linear interpolation between the two 

respective charge sizes. We assume that 

room air conditioners will be at least 

5,000 BTU/hr in capacity; this 

corresponds to cooling a floor area of 

roughly 100 square feet or 9.3 m2 and 

it is the lowest value observed at a 

popular retailer’s Web site 

(www.homedepot.com). 

4. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping 

Equipment must have distinguishing 

color-coded hoses and piping to 

indicate use of a flammable refrigerant. 

This will help alert technicians 

immediately to the use of a flammable 

refrigerant, thereby reducing the risk of 

using sparking equipment or otherwise 

having an ignition source nearby. The 

AC and refrigeration industry currently 

uses distinguishing colors as a means of 

identifying different refrigerants in 

containers, and so this approach is 

consistent with industry practice. 

Likewise, distinguishing coloring has 

been used elsewhere to indicate an 

unusual and potentially dangerous 

situation, for example in the use of 

orange-insulated wires in hybrid electric 

vehicles. Currently, no industry 

standard exists for color-coded hoses or 

pipes for ethane, HFC–32, isobutane, 

propane, or R–441A. The final use 

condition requires all such refrigerator 

tubing to be colored red PMS #185 to 

match the red band displayed on the 

container of flammable refrigerants 

under the Air Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Guideline 

‘‘N’’ 2012, ‘‘2012 Guideline for 

Assignment of Refrigerant Container 

Colors.’’ 

A cost-effective alternative to painting 

or dying the hose or pipe would be to 

instead add a colored plastic sleeve or 

cap to the service tube that is the same 

red color (PMS #185). The sleeve could 

also be boldly marked with a graphic to 

indicate that the refrigerant is 

flammable. The colored plastic sleeve or 

cap would have to be installed in such 

a way as to require that it be forcibly 

removed in order to access the service 

tube. This would alert the technician 

that the refrigeration circuit that she/he 

was about to access contained a 

flammable refrigerant, even if all 

warning labels were somehow removed. 

EPA is also concerned with ensuring 

adequate notification of the presence of 

flammable refrigerants for personnel 

disposing of appliances containing 

flammable refrigerants. 

EPA believes the use of color-coded 

hoses or piping (including the use of 

sleeves), as well as the use of warning 

labels discussed below, is reasonable 

and consistent with other general 

industry practices. This approach is the 

same as that adopted in our previous 

rule on flammable refrigerants 

(December 20, 2011, at 76 FR 78832). 

5. Labeling 

As a use condition, EPA is requiring 

labeling of new household and retail 

refrigerators and freezers, vending 

machines, non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment, very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment, and room air 

conditioners that are designed to use 

one of the refrigerants subject to the 

acceptability determinations in this 

action. EPA is requiring that the 

warning labels on the equipment 

contain letters at least 1⁄4 inch high, and 

be permanently affixed to the 

equipment. Warning label language 

requirements are found in Section III.A 

of this rule, ‘‘Listing decisions: 

substitutes and end-uses,’’ as well as in 

the regulatory text. The warning label 

language is similar to or exactly the 

same as that required in the following 

UL standards: UL 250 in Section SA6.1 

for household refrigerators and freezers; 

UL 541 in Section SA6.1 for vending 

machines; UL 471 in Section SB6.1 for 

commercial refrigerators and freezers; 

and UL 484 in Section SA6.1 for room 

AC units. 

EPA believes that it would be difficult 

to see warning labels with the minimum 

lettering height requirement of 1⁄8 inch 

provided in these UL standards. 

Therefore, consistent with the use 

conditions in our previous hydrocarbon 

refrigerants rule (December 20, 2011 at 

76 FR 78832), the minimum height for 

lettering must be 1⁄4 inch as opposed to 1⁄8 inch, which will make it easier for 

technicians, consumers, retail 

storeowners, and emergency first 

responders to view the warning labels. 

We understand that UL is considering 

revising its standards to be consistent 

with this requirement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19466 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Venting Prohibition 

1. What are the statutory requirements 

concerning venting, release, or disposal 

of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes 

under section 608 of the CAA? 

The statutory requirements 

concerning venting, release, or disposal 

of refrigerants and refrigerant substitutes 

are under Section 608 of the CAA. 

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 ODS used as 

refrigerants, such as certain CFCs and 

HCFCs, during the service, repair, or 

disposal of appliances and industrial 

process refrigeration (IPR). EPA’s 

authority to promulgate the regulatory 

revisions in this action is based in part 

on Section 608 of the CAA. Section 

608(c)(1) provides that it is unlawful for 

any person, in the course of 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of an appliance (or IPR), to 

knowingly vent, or otherwise knowingly 

release or dispose of, any class I or class 

II substance used as a refrigerant in that 

appliance (or IPR) in a manner which 

permits the ODS to enter the 

environment. 

Section 608(c)(1) further exempts 

from this self-effectuating prohibition de 

minimis releases associated with good 

faith attempts to recapture and recycle 

or safely dispose of such a substance. 

EPA, as set forth in its regulations, 

interprets releases to meet the criteria 

for exempted de minimis releases if they 

occur when the recycling and recovery 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated under sections 608 and 

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

Section 608(c)(2) extends the 

prohibition in Section 608(c)(1) to 

knowingly venting or otherwise 

knowingly releasing or disposing of any 

refrigerant substitute for class I or class 

II substances by any person 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of appliances or IPR. This 

prohibition applies to any substitute 

unless the Administrator determines 

that such venting, releasing, or 

disposing does not pose a threat to the 

environment. Thus, section 608(c) 

provides EPA authority to promulgate 

regulations to interpret, implement, and 

enforce this prohibition on venting, 

releasing, or disposing of class I or class 

II substances and their refrigerant 

substitutes, which we refer to as the 

‘‘venting prohibition’’ in this action. 

EPA’s authority under Section 608(c) 

includes authority to implement Section 

608(c)(2) by exempting certain 

substitutes for class I or class II 

substances from the venting prohibition 

when the Administrator determines that 

such venting, release, or disposal does 

not pose a threat to the environment. 

2. What are EPA’s regulations 

concerning venting, releasing, or 

disposing of refrigerant substitutes? 

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 

refrigeration and AC appliances. In the 

same 1993 rule, EPA also promulgated 

regulations implementing the Section 

608(c) prohibition on knowingly 

venting, releasing, or disposing of class 

I or class II controlled substances. These 

regulations were designed to 

substantially reduce the use and 

emissions of ozone-depleting 

refrigerants. 

EPA issued a final rule on March 12, 

2004, at 69 FR 11946, and a second rule 

on April 13, 2005, at 70 FR 19273, 

clarifying how the venting prohibition 

in Section 608(c) applies to substitutes 

for CFC and HCFC refrigerants (e.g., 

HFCs and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)) 

during the maintenance, service, repair, 

or disposal of appliances. These 

regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F. In relevant part, they 

provide that no person maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

appliances may knowingly vent or 

otherwise release into the environment 

any refrigerant or substitute from such 

appliances, with the exception of the 

following substitutes in the following 

end-uses, effective June 23, 2014: 

(A) Isobutane and R–441A in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

or 

(B) Propane in retail food refrigerators 

and freezers (stand-alone units only). 

As explained in an earlier EPA 

rulemaking concerning refrigerant 

substitutes, EPA has not promulgated 

regulations requiring certification of 

refrigerant recycling/recovery 

equipment intended for use with 

substitutes to date (70 FR 19275; April 

13, 2005). However, as EPA 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 Section 82.154(a) (id.). EPA 

has also noted that, in accordance with 

Section 608(c) of the Act, the regulatory 

prohibition at Section 82.154(a) reflects 

the statutory references to de minimis 

releases of substitutes as they pertain to 

good faith attempts to recover and 

recycle or safely dispose of nonexempted substitutes (id.). 

On May 23, 2014, at 79 FR 29682, 

EPA exempted from the venting 

prohibition three hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

the specified end-uses: isobutane and 

R–441A, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and propane as a refrigerant substitute 

in retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only). That rule does 

not apply to blends of hydrocarbons 

with other refrigerants or containing any 

amount of any CFC, HCFC, HFC, or PFC. 

In that action, EPA determined that 

for the purposes of CAA Section 

608(c)(2), the venting, release, or 

disposal of such hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in the specified end-uses 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment, considering both the 

inherent characteristics of these 

substances and the limited quantities 

used in the relevant applications. EPA 

further concluded that other authorities, 

controls, or practices that apply to such 

refrigerant substitutes help to mitigate 

environmental risk from the release of 

those three hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes. For example, state and local 

air quality agencies may include VOC 

emissions reduction strategies in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) developed 

to meet and maintain the NAAQS that 

would apply to hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. 

3. What is EPA requiring regarding 

venting, release, or disposal of 

refrigerant substitutes, other than 

hydrocarbons, included in this action? 

This rule regulates the use of HFC–32 

in room AC units. All HFCs are 

currently subject to the venting 

prohibition. EPA is not extending the 

exemption to the venting prohibition in 

this action to HFC–32 or any refrigerant 

blends that contain HFC–32 or any other 

HFC. Further, the exemption to the 

venting prohibition in this action does 

not extend to blends containing 

hydrocarbons with other types of 

compounds, e.g., blends of HFCs and 

hydrocarbons. Such refrigerant 

substitutes are still subject to the 

statutory and regulatory venting 

prohibition. 

4. What is EPA’s determination 

regarding whether venting of 

hydrocarbons listed as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in the enduses in this action poses a threat to the 

environment? 

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

the CAA, EPA considers two factors in 

determining whether or not venting, 

release, or disposal of a refrigerant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19467 

substitute during the maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

appliances poses a threat to the 

environment. See 69 FR 11948 (March 

12, 2004); 79 FR 29682 (May 23, 2014). 

First, EPA analyzes the threat to the 

environment due to inherent 

characteristics of the refrigerant 

substitute, such as GWP. Second, EPA 

determines whether and to what extent 

venting, release, or disposal actually 

takes place during the maintenance, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing of 

appliances, and to what extent such 

actions are 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 addition, we considered 

the public comments we received on the 

proposed rule on this topic. We received 

no comments that caused us to change 

our proposed conclusion that venting, 

release, or disposal of the specified 

refrigerant substitutes in the specified 

end-uses does not pose a threat to the 

environment. Therefore, we are 

finalizing this portion of the rule as 

originally proposed. 

i. Potential environmental impacts 

EPA has evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts of releasing into 

the environment the four hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes that we are listing 

under the SNAP program as acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, in the 

specified end-uses—i.e., ethane in very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment and equipment for nonmechanical heat transfer; isobutane in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone equipment only) and 

vending machines; propane in 

household refrigerators and freezers and 

combination refrigerators and freezers, 

vending machines, and self-contained 

room air conditioners for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps; and R–441A in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

equipment only), vending machines, 

and self-contained room air 

conditioners for residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps. In particular, we assessed the 

potential impact of the release of 

additional hydrocarbons on local air 

quality and their ability to decompose 

in the atmosphere, their ODP, their 

GWPs, and potential impacts on 

ecosystems. 

As explained in Section IV.A, ‘‘Effects 

on the environment,’’ the ODP of these 

hydrocarbons is zero, the GWPs are less 

than 10, and effects on aquatic life are 

expected to be small. As to potential 

effects on local air quality, based on the 

analysis and modeling results described 

in the proposal and in Section IV.A of 

this preamble, EPA concludes that the 

four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

listed in this action for their specific 

end-uses are expected to have little 

impact on local air quality. 

In addition, when examining all 

hydrocarbon substitute refrigerants in 

those uses for which UL currently has 

standards in place, for which the SNAP 

program has already listed the uses as 

acceptable subject to use conditions, or 

for which the SNAP program is 

reviewing a submission, including those 

in this rule, we found that even if all the 

refrigerant in appliances in end-uses 

addressed in this rule were to be 

emitted, there would be a worst-case 

impact of less than 0.15 ppb for groundlevel ozone in the Los Angeles area. In 

light of its evaluation of potential 

environmental impacts, EPA concludes 

that the four hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in the end-uses at issue in 

this rule are not expected to pose a 

threat to the environment on the basis 

of the inherent characteristics of these 

substances and the limited quantities 

used in the relevant end-uses (ICF, 

2014a). 

ii. Toxicity and Flammability 

As discussed in Sections IV.B, 

‘‘Flammability’’ and IV.C., ‘‘Toxicity 

and asphyxiation,’’ EPA’s SNAP 

program evaluated the flammability and 

toxicity risks from the substitute 

refrigerants in this rule. EPA is 

providing some of that information in 

this section as well. 

Hydrocarbons, including ethane, 

propane, isobutane and the hydrocarbon 

blend R–441A, are classified as A3 

refrigerants by ASHRAE Standard 34– 

2010, indicating that they have low 

toxicity and high flammability. 

Hydrocarbons in this rule have LFLs 

ranging from 1.8% to 3.0% (18,000 ppm 

to 30,000 ppm). To address flammability 

risks, this rule contains 

recommendations for their safe use (see 

Section III.E., ‘‘Recommendations for 

the safe use of flammable substitute 

refrigerants’’ below) and specified use 

conditions. The SNAP program’s 

analysis suggests that the use conditions 

in this rule mitigate flammability risks. 

Like most refrigerants, at high 

concentrations hydrocarbons can 

displace oxygen and cause 

asphyxiation. Various industry and 

regulatory standards exist to address 

asphyxiation and toxicity risks. The 

SNAP program’s analysis of 

asphyxiation and toxicity risks suggests 

that the use conditions in this rule 

mitigate asphyxiation and toxicity risks. 

Furthermore, the Agency believes that 

the flammability risks and occupational 

exposures to hydrocarbons are 

adequately regulated by OSHA and 

building and fire codes at a local and 

national level. 

iii. Authorities, Controls, or Practices 

EPA believes that existing authorities, 

controls, or practices will mitigate 

environmental risk from the release of 

these hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes. Analyses performed for both 

this rule and the SNAP rules issued in 

1994 and 2011 (March 17, 1994, at 59 

FR 13044 and December 20, 2011, at 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 hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes listed in this 

action. As explained below, EPA 

concludes that the limits and controls 

under other authorities, regulations, or 

practices adequately control the release 

of and exposure to the four hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes and mitigate risks 

from any possible release. 

As mentioned above, the 

determination of whether venting, 

release, or disposal of a substitute 

refrigerant poses a threat to the 

environment includes considering 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 

four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes, 

in the specified end-uses and subject to 

the use conditions in this action, does 

not pose a threat to the environment. 

Industry service practices and OSHA 

standards and guidelines that address 

hydrocarbon refrigeration equipment, 

include monitoring efforts, engineering 

controls, and operating procedures. 

OSHA requirements that apply during 

servicing include continuous 

monitoring of explosive gas 

concentrations and oxygen levels. 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. In the 

SNAP listings in Section III.A, ‘‘Listing 

decisions: substitutes and end-uses,’’ we 

note that the amount of refrigerant 

substitute from a refrigerant loop is 

limited: 57 g for household refrigerators 

and freezers; 150 g for commercial 

stand-alone refrigerators and freezers, 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment, and vending machines; with 

larger but still limited charges for room 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19468 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

air conditioners (1,000 g for 

hydrocarbon refrigerants). This 

indicates that hydrocarbon emissions 

from such uses are likely to be relatively 

small. 

Hydrocarbons that are also VOC may 

be regulated as VOC under sections of 

the CAA that address nonattainment, 

attainment, and maintenance of the 

NAAQS for ground-level ozone, 

including those sections addressing 

development of SIPs 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 the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health’s 

(NIOSH) guidelines, various standards, 

and state and local building codes. To 

the extent that release during 

maintaining, repairing, servicing, or 

disposing 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 

practices and controls mitigate the risk 

to the environment that may be posed 

by the venting, release, or disposal of 

these four hydrocarbon refrigerants 

during the maintaining, servicing, 

repairing, or disposing of appliances. 

EPA is now aware of equipment that 

can be used to recover hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. While there are no relevant 

U.S. standards for such recovery 

equipment, to the extent that these 

hydrocarbons are recovered rather than 

vented in specific end-uses and 

equipment, EPA recommends the use of 

recovery equipment designed 

specifically for flammable refrigerants in 

accordance with applicable safe 

handling practices. 

iv. Conclusion 

EPA has reviewed the potential 

environmental impacts of the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

the end-uses in this action, as well as 

the authorities, controls, and practices 

in place for those hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes. EPA also 

considered the public comments on the 

proposal for this action. Based on this 

review, EPA concludes that these four 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes in 

these end-uses and subject to these use 

conditions are not expected to pose a 

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, or practices help 

mitigate environmental risk from the 

release of those four hydrocarbons in 

these end-uses and subject to these use 

conditions. In light of these conclusions 

and those described or identified above 

in this section, EPA is determining that 

based on current evidence and risk 

analyses, the venting, release, or 

disposal of these four hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes in these end-uses, 

and during the maintenance, servicing, 

repairing or disposing of the relevant 

appliances or equipment, does not pose 

a threat to the environment. 

Furthermore, EPA is exempting from the 

venting prohibition at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1) these additional end-uses 

for which these hydrocarbons are being 

listed as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, under the SNAP program. 

This exemption does not mean that 

hydrocarbons can be vented in all 

situations at this time. Hydrocarbons 

being recovered, vented, or otherwise 

disposed of from commercial and 

industrial appliances are likely to be 

hazardous waste under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

(see 40 CFR parts 261–270). As 

discussed in the final rule allowing for 

the venting of isobutane and R–441A as 

refrigerant substitutes in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers, and propane 

as a refrigerant substitute in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only), incidental releases may 

occur during the maintenance, service, 

and repair of appliances. Nor would this 

activity be subject to RCRA 

requirements for the disposal of 

hazardous waste, as such releases would 

not constitute disposal of the refrigerant 

charge as a solid waste, per se. Disposal 

of hydrocarbons from household 

appliances is also not considered 

disposal of a hazardous waste under the 

existing RCRA regulations and could be 

vented under the household hazardous 

waste exemption. See 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(1). However, for commercial 

and industrial appliances, it is likely 

that flammable hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes would be classified as 

hazardous waste and would need to be 

managed as hazardous waste under the 

RCRA regulations (40 CFR parts 261– 

270). 

E. Recommendations for the Safe use of 

Flammable Substitute Refrigerants 

EPA recommends that only 

technicians specifically trained in 

handling flammable refrigerant 

substitutes dispose of or service 

refrigeration and AC equipment 

containing these substances. 

Technicians should know how to 

minimize the risk of fire and the 

procedures for using flammable 

refrigerant substitutes safely. Releases of 

large quantities of flammable 

refrigerants during servicing and 

manufacturing, especially in enclosed, 

poorly ventilated spaces or in areas 

where large amounts of refrigerant are 

stored, could cause an explosion if an 

ignition source exists nearby. For these 

reasons, it is important that only 

properly trained technicians handle 

flammable refrigerant substitutes when 

maintaining, servicing, repairing, or 

disposing of household and retail food 

refrigerators and freezers, very low 

temperature freezers, non-mechanical 

heat transfer equipment (e.g., 

thermosiphons), and room air 

conditioners. In addition, EPA 

recommends that if hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes are vented, 

released, or disposed of (rather than 

recovered), as would be allowed in most 

of the specified end-uses in this rule, 

the release should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a 

building. 

We are aware that at least two 

organizations, Refrigeration Service 

Engineers Society (RSES) and the ESCO 

Institute, have developed technician 

training programs in collaboration with 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers 

and users that address safe use of 

flammable refrigerant substitutes. In 

addition, EPA has reviewed several 

training programs provided as part of 

SNAP submissions from persons 

interested in flammable refrigerant 

substitutes. The agency intends to 

update the test bank for technician 

certification under Section 608 of the 

CAA as we have done previously, and 

will consider including additional 

questions on flammable refrigerants. By 

adding such questions to the test bank, 

EPA would supplement but would not 

replace technician training programs 

currently provided by non-government 

entities. EPA will seek additional 

information and guidance on how best 

to incorporate this content through a 

separate process outside of this final 

rule. 

IV. What criteria did EPA consider in 

determining whether to list the 

substitutes as acceptable and in 

determining the use conditions, and 

how does EPA consider those criteria? 

As discussed above, Section 612(c) of 

the CAA directs EPA to publish lists of 

acceptable substitutes for specific uses. 

EPA considers whether the risks to 

human health and the environment of a 

substitute poses less risk than that 

posed by other substitutes that are 

currently or potentially available. EPA 

also considers whether the substitute for 

class I and class II ODS poses lower 

overall risk to human health and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19469 

13We assume that substitutes containing no 

chlorine, bromine, or iodine have an ODP of zero. 

14Under EPA’s phaseout regulations, virgin 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b, and blends containing 

HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b may only be used to 

service existing appliances. Consequently, virgin 

HCFC–22, HCFC–142b and blends containing 

HCFC–22 or HCFC–142b may not be used to 

manufacture new pre-charged appliances or 

appliance components or to charge new appliances 

assembled onsite. 

15For example, Department of Energy (DOE) 

standards apply to portable air conditioners, room 

air conditioners, PTACs and PTHPs, household 

refrigerators and freezers, refrigerated beverage 

vending machines, and commercial refrigeration 

equipment. See https://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/standards_test_

procedures.html. 

16Refrigeration or air conditioning equipment in 

the applicable covered equipment class would still 

be subject to DOE’s standards, regardless of the 

refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a 

manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to 

undue hardship by DOE’s regulations, the 

manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office of Hearing 

and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

Continued 

environment as compared to the ODS 

historically used in the end-use. The 

criteria we review are listed at 40 CFR 

82.180(a)(7). These criteria are: (i) 

atmospheric effects and related health 

and environmental impacts; (ii) general 

population risks from ambient exposure 

to compounds with direct toxicity and 

to increased ground-level ozone; (iii) 

ecosystem risks; (iv) occupational risks; 

(v) consumer risks; (vi) flammability; 

and (vii) cost and availability of the 

substitute. 

EPA evaluated each of the criteria for 

each substitute in each end-use in this 

action and then for each substitute, we 

considered overall risk to human health 

and the environment in comparison to 

other available or potentially available 

alternatives in the same end-uses. Based 

on our evaluations, we may reach 

different conclusions about the same 

substitute in different end-uses, because 

of different risk profiles (e.g., different 

exposure levels and usage patterns) and 

different sets of available or potentially 

available substitutes for each end-use. 

As we have noted previously, 

environmental and human health 

exposures can vary significantly 

depending on the particular application 

of a substitute—and over time, 

information available regarding a 

substitute can change. See 78 FR at 

29035 (May 17, 2013). SNAP’s 

comparative risk framework does not 

imply fundamental tradeoffs with 

respect to different types of risk, either 

to the environment or to human health. 

For example, in this rule, we considered 

all the human health and environmental 

criteria, and addressed the potential 

risks from flammability by imposing use 

conditions, rather than deciding that 

other criteria were more important. EPA 

recognizes that during the more than 

two-decade history of the SNAP 

program, new information about 

alternatives already found acceptable 

has become available and new 

alternatives have emerged. To the extent 

possible, for each SNAP review, EPA 

considers information current at the 

time of the review which has improved 

our understanding of the risk factors for 

the environment and human health in 

the context of the available or 

potentially available alternatives for a 

given use. 

A. Effects on the Environment 

The SNAP program considers a 

number of environmental criteria when 

evaluating substitutes: ODP; climate 

effects, primarily based on GWP; local 

air quality impacts, particularly 

potential impacts on smog formation 

from emissions of VOC; and ecosystem 

effects, particularly from negative 

impacts on aquatic life. These and other 

environmental and health risks are 

discussed below. 

The ODP is the ratio of the impact on 

stratospheric ozone of a chemical 

compared to the impact of an identical 

mass of CFC–11. Thus, the ODP of CFC– 

11 is defined to be one (1.0). Other ODS 

have ODPs that range from 0.01 to ten 

(10.0). 

All refrigerant substitutes in this final 

rule have an ODP of zero, lower than the 

ODP of ozone depleting refrigerants 

such as CFC–12 (ODP = 1.0); HCFC–22 

(ODP = 0.055); R–13B1 (ODP = 10) and 

R–502 (ODP = 0.334). The most 

commonly used substitutes in the enduses addressed in this final rule also 

have an ODP of zero (e.g., R–404A, R– 

134a, R–410A, and R–407C).13 Some 

less common alternatives for these enduses, such as R–401A, R–414A, and 

other blends containing HCFC–22 or 

HCFC–142b,14 have ODPs ranging from 

0.01 to 0.047. Thus, the refrigerant 

substitutes in this rule have ODPs lower 

than or identical to the ODPs of other 

available substitutes and of ODS 

historically used in the end-uses 

addressed in this rule. 

The GWP is a means of quantifying 

the potential integrated climate forcing 

of various GHGs relative to carbon 

dioxide. Each of the hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in this final rule has a 

relatively low 100-year integrated GWP 

of less than ten while HFC–32 has a 

GWP of 675. For comparison, some 

other commonly used refrigerants 

currently listed as acceptable in retail 

food refrigeration, vending machines, 

and household refrigerators and freezers 

end-uses are R–134a, R–404A, and R– 

407C, with GWPs of about 1,430, 3,920, 

and 1,770, respectively. In very low 

temperature refrigeration, a commonlyused substitute is R–508B, with a GWP 

of 13,400. An ODS in this end-use is R– 

13B1/halon 1301 with a GWP of 7,140. 

The GWPs of the substitutes in this final 

rule are significantly lower than those of 

other refrigerants currently being used 

in the residential and light commercial 

AC and heat pump end-use, such as the 

HFC blend substitute R–410A. In 

addition, the substitutes in this rule 

have lower GWPs than those of ODS in 

this end-use, CFC–12 (GWP = 10,900); 

HCFC–22 (GWP = 1,810); and R–502 

(GWP = 4,660) (IPCC, 2007). 

As stated above, EPA considers 

overall risk to human health and the 

environment compared to alternatives 

that are available and potentially 

available in a given end-use. Therefore, 

while the GWP of 675 for HFC–32 is 

considered low for the residential and 

light-commercial AC and heat pumps 

end-use, it may not be considered low 

in other end-uses that have a larger 

variety of substitutes with lower GWPs. 

Among the acceptable substitutes listed 

in the residential and light-commercial 

AC and heat pumps end-use, only 

ammonia absorption and the non-vapor 

compression technologies evaporative 

cooling and desiccant cooling have 

lower GWPs than the substitutes listed 

in this final rule in this end-use. 

The total environmental effects 

impacts of these refrigerants also 

depend upon the energy use of 

appliances, since the ‘‘indirect’’ GHG 

emissions associated with electricity 

consumption typically exceed those 

from refrigerants over the full lifecycle 

of refrigerant-containing products. 

(ORNL, 1997). If appliances designed to 

use refrigerants listed as acceptable in 

this final rule are less energy efficient 

than the appliances they replace, then it 

is possible that these appliances would 

result in higher lifecycle GHG emissions 

than appliances using a higher GWP 

refrigerant or refrigerant substitute. 

Conversely, higher energy efficiency of 

these appliances would lead to even 

lower lifecycle GHG emissions. 

While we have not undertaken a 

comprehensive assessment of all 

sources of GHG emissions associated 

with substituting ODS and other 

commonly used refrigerants with the 

refrigerants in this final rule, we note 

that energy efficiency standards exist for 

most of the types of equipment covered 

here.15 Thus, total energy use with the 

substitute refrigerants we are finding 

acceptable in this action can be 

expected to be no higher than that 

required by the standards for those 

classes of equipment.16 Further, testing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19470 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA’s 

authority under Section 504 of the DOE 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented 

at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 

authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis 

if it determines that a manufacturer has 

demonstrated that meeting the standard would 

cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 

burdens. 

17The analysis included stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment and coolers; vending 

machines; refrigerated transport; water coolers; 

commercial ice machines; household refrigerators 

and freezers; and room air conditioners (window 

AC, PTAC, and PTHP). The analysis did not 

expressly break out very low temperature 

refrigeration or non-mechanical heat transfer from 

commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

18Refrigerants in this scenario included propane, 

isobutane, and R–441A in the end-uses where they 

are listed to be acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, among others. Ethane was not expressly 

included, since the type of equipment using ethane 

is not broken out separately in the analysis. 

However, ethane is less reactive than the other 

refrigerants included in the analysis, so this 

omission is expected to result in a slight 

overestimation of impacts, if any. 

data, peer-reviewed journal articles, and 

other information provided by the 

submitters for these substitute 

refrigerants indicate that equipment 

using these refrigerants is likely to have 

a higher coefficient of performance and 

use less energy than equipment 

currently being manufactured that uses 

the most commonly used refrigerants 

that are listed as acceptable under 

SNAP. This indicates that equipment 

using the refrigerants listed will have 

the same or lower climate impacts than 

other available substitutes (Daikin, 

2011; A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012; A/S 

Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA, 2013). 

In addition to global impacts on the 

atmosphere, EPA evaluated potential 

impacts of the substitutes on local air 

quality. Ethane and HFC–32 are exempt 

from the definition of VOC under CAA 

regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

addressing the development of SIPs to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. The 

other refrigerants, isobutane, propane, 

and components of R–441A, including 

isobutane, n-butane, and propane, are 

VOC. Potential emissions of VOC from 

all substitutes for all end-uses in the 

refrigeration and AC sector are 

addressed by the venting prohibition 

under Section 608 of the CAA. Under 

that prohibition, refrigerant substitutes 

(and thus the VOC they contain) may 

only be emitted where EPA issues a 

final determination exempting a 

refrigerant substitute from the venting 

prohibition on the basis that venting, 

releasing or disposing of such substance 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment. Based on an analysis 

described below, EPA estimates that 

potential emissions of hydrocarbons if 

used as refrigerant substitutes in all enduses in the refrigeration and AC sector 

would have little impact on local air 

quality, with the possible exception of 

unsaturated hydrocarbons such as 

propylene (ICF, 2014a). 

EPA analyzed a number of scenarios 

to consider the potential impacts on 

local air quality if hydrocarbon 

refrigerants were used widely. We used 

EPA’s Vintaging Model to estimate the 

hydrocarbon emissions from these 

scenarios and EPA’s Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 

to assess their potential incremental 

contributions to ground-level ozone 

concentrations (ICF, 2014a). That 

analysis was conservative in that it 

assumed that the most reactive 

hydrocarbon subject to this action— 

isobutane—was used in all refrigeration 

and AC uses even though isobutane was 

not proposed or listed as acceptable for 

use in all refrigeration and AC uses. In 

addition, the analysis assumed that all 

refrigerant used was emitted to the 

atmosphere. In that highly conservative 

scenario, the model predicted that the 

maximum increase in the 8-hour 

average ground-level ozone 

concentration would be 0.72 ppb in Los 

Angeles. 

For further information on the 

potential impacts of this rule and other 

decisions we might make, EPA also 

performed a less conservative analysis, 

looking at a set of end-uses that would 

be more likely to use hydrocarbon 

refrigerants between now and 2030. The 

analysis assumed use of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in those uses for which UL 

currently has standards in place, for 

which the SNAP program has already 

listed the uses as acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, or for which the SNAP 

program is reviewing a submission, 

including those in this rule.17 In 

addition, the air quality analysis 

assumed several different 

hydrocarbons 18 would be used based 

upon those under review by the SNAP 

program in the end-uses for which they 

were submitted. For example, we 

assumed use of propane, R–441A, and 

another hydrocarbon refrigerant under 

review in room air conditioners; and 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A in 

vending machines, stand-alone retail 

food refrigeration equipment, and 

household refrigerators and freezers; but 

no use of hydrocarbons in chillers used 

for AC of large buildings. (For further 

information on the specific 

assumptions, see ICF, 2014a, in the 

docket for this rulemaking.) 

Based on this still conservative but 

more probable assessment of refrigerant 

use, we found that even if all the 

refrigerant in appliances in end-uses 

addressed in this final rule were to be 

emitted, there would be a worst-case 

impact of 0.15 ppb ozone in the Los 

Angeles area, which is the area with the 

highest level of ozone pollution in the 

United States. In the other cities 

examined in the analysis, Houston and 

Atlanta, impacts were smaller (no more 

than 0.03 and 0.01 ppb, respectively) 

(ICF, 2014a). Because both the highly 

conservative as well as the conservative 

but more probable assessments 

indicated there would be relatively low 

air quality impacts of these refrigerants 

if they are released to the atmosphere in 

limited amounts, EPA believes that 

these refrigerants would not have a 

substantially greater impact on local air 

quality than other refrigerants listed as 

acceptable in the end-uses in this final 

rule. 

Effects on aquatic life of the 

substitutes are expected to be small and 

pose no greater risk of aquatic or 

ecosystem effects than those of other 

available substitutes for these uses. The 

refrigerant substitutes in this rule are all 

highly volatile and would evaporate or 

partition to air, rather than contaminate 

surface waters. 

B. Flammability 

The flammability risks of the 

substitutes are of concern because 

household and retail food refrigerators 

and freezers and room AC units have 

traditionally used refrigerants that are 

not flammable. Without appropriate use 

conditions, the flammability risk posed 

by these refrigerants could be higher 

than non-flammable refrigerants because 

individuals may not be aware that their 

actions could potentially cause a fire, 

and because without the requirements 

of this rule, these refrigerants could be 

used in existing equipment that has not 

been designed specifically to minimize 

flammable risks. In this section, we 

discuss the flammability risks posed by 

the refrigerants in this rule and explain 

the use conditions we believe are 

necessary to mitigate those risks to 

ensure that the overall risk to human 

health and the environment posed by 

these substitutes is not greater than the 

overall risk posed by other substitutes in 

the same end-uses. In addition, we 

discuss why the flammability risks have 

led us to find that these substitutes are 

only acceptable for use in new 

equipment specifically designed for 

these flammable refrigerants. 

Due to their flammable nature, ethane, 

isobutane, propane, HFC–32, and R– 

441A could pose a significant safety 

concern for workers and consumers in 

the end-uses addressed in this rule if 

they are not handled correctly. In the 

presence of an ignition source (e.g., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19471 

19The AEGL limit is an emergency guideline for 

exposures to the general population (including 

susceptible populations) and is not time-weighted. 

It also considers the chemical’s flammability in 

addition to its toxicity. EPA develops a set of AEGL 

values for chemical for five exposure periods (10 

and 30 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours and 8 hours). For 

each exposure period, three different AEGL values 

are developed to address different levels of 

toxicological impacts. Of relevance for the modeled 

scenarios is the AEGL–1 (10,000 ppm), which is 

defined as: ‘‘the airborne concentration, expressed 

as parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter 

(pm or mg/m3) of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population including 

susceptible individuals, could experience notable 

discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not 

disabling and are transient and reversible upon 

cessation of exposure.’’ While permanent 

toxicological effects are not expected up to the 

AEGL–2 value, this limit is not relevant for this 

analysis because at that level, flammability would 

be a greater concern. 

static electricity spark resulting from 

closing a door, using a torch during 

service, or a short circuit in wiring that 

controls the motor of a compressor), an 

explosion or a fire could occur when the 

concentration of refrigerant exceeds its 

LFL. The LFLs of the substitutes are: 

ethane—30,000 ppm; HFC–32—139,000 

ppm; isobutane—18,000 ppm; 

propane—21,000 ppm; and R–441A— 

20,500 ppm. Therefore, to use these 

substitutes safely, it is important to 

minimize the presence of potential 

ignition sources and to reduce the 

likelihood that the levels of ethane, 

HFC–32, isobutane, propane, or R–441A 

will exceed the LFL. 

To determine whether flammability 

would be a concern for manufacturing 

and service personnel or for consumers, 

EPA analyzed a plausible worst-case 

scenario to model a catastrophic release 

of the refrigerants. The worst-case 

scenario analysis for each refrigerant 

revealed that even if the unit’s full 

charge is emitted within one minute, 

none of these refrigerants reached their 

respective LFLs of 1.8% for isobutane, 

2.1% for propane, 2.05% for R–441A, or 

3.0% for ethane, provided that the 

charge sizes were no greater than those 

specified in the relevant standard from 

UL (ICF, 2014b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k). Thus, 

there would not be a significant risk of 

fire or explosion, even under those 

worst-case assumptions, so long as the 

charge meets the use conditions in this 

final rule. Detailed analysis of the 

modeling results are discussed below in 

the next section regarding ‘‘Toxicity and 

asphyxiation.’’ 

EPA also reviewed the submitters’ 

detailed assessments of the probability 

of events that might create a fire and 

engineering risk and approaches to 

avoid sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. Further information on 

these analyses and EPA’s risk 

assessments are available in public 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748 at 

www.regulations.gov. Although the 

analysis showed no potential for the 

released refrigerant from one piece of 

equipment to reach the LFL, 

manufacturing and service personnel or 

consumers may not be familiar with 

refrigeration or AC equipment 

containing a flammable refrigerant. 

Therefore, use conditions are necessary 

to ensure that people handling such 

equipment are aware that the equipment 

contains a flammable refrigerant and to 

ensure safe handling. Because of 

existing OSHA and building code 

requirements, we expect that the 

equipment manufacturer, who would be 

storing large quantities of the 

refrigerant, is familiar with and uses 

proper safety precautions to minimize 

the risk of explosion. We are including 

in the ‘‘Further Information’’ section of 

the SNAP listings recommendations that 

these facilities be equipped with proper 

ventilation systems and be properly 

designed to reduce possible ignition 

sources. The use conditions allow the 

flammable refrigerants to be used 

without a higher risk to human health 

and the environment than that posed by 

nonflammable substitutes. 

C. Toxicity and asphyxiation 

In evaluating potential toxicity 

impacts of ethane, HFC–32, isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A on human health, 

EPA considered both occupational and 

consumer risks. EPA investigated the 

risk of asphyxiation and of exposure to 

toxic levels of refrigerant for a plausible 

worst-case scenario and a typical use 

scenario for each refrigerant. In the 

worst-case scenario of a catastrophic 

leak, we modeled release of the unit’s 

full charge within one minute into a 

confined space to estimate 

concentrations that might result. We 

considered a conservatively small space 

appropriate to each end-use, such as a 

small convenience store of 244 m3 for 

retail food refrigeration, a small galley 

kitchen of 18 m3 for a household 

refrigerator/freezer, or a small bedroom 

of 41 m3 for a room air conditioner. 

To evaluate toxicity of all five 

refrigerants, EPA estimated the 

maximum TWA exposure both for a 

short-term exposure scenario, with a 15- 

minute and 30-minute TWA exposure, 

and for an 8-hour TWA that would be 

more typical of occupational exposure 

for a technician servicing the 

equipment. We compared these shortterm and long-term exposure values to 

relevant industry and government 

workplace exposure limits for ethane, 

HFC–32, isobutane, propane, and 

components of R–441A (including 

potential impurities). The modeling 

results indicate that both the short-term 

(15-minute and 30-minute) and longterm (8-hour) worker exposure 

concentrations would be below the 

relevant workplace exposure limits, 

such as the OSHA permissible exposure 

limit (PEL), the NIOSH recommended 

exposure limit (REL), the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists’ (ACGIH) TLV, or in the case 

of HFC–32, the manufacturer’s 

recommended workplace exposure 

limit. In some cases where there was not 

an established short-term exposure limit 

(STEL), we considered information on 

short-term exposure such as the no 

observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) 

from available toxicity studies or the 

National Research Council’s Acute 

Emergency Guideline Limits (AEGL).19

The respective workplace exposure 

limits we considered for the various 

compounds, including components of 

the refrigerant blend R–441A, are as 

follows: 

• n-Butane, a component in R–441A: 

800 ppm NIOSH REL on 10-hr TWA; 

6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 30 minutes 

• Ethane: 1,000 ppm TLV on 8-hour 

TWA; 3,000 ppm over 15 minutes 

• HFC–32: 1,000 ppm manufacturer’s 

exposure guideline on 8-hour TWA; 

3,000 ppm over 15 minutes 

• Isobutane: 800 ppm REL on 10-hr 

TWA; 6,900 ppm over 30 minutes 

• Propane: 1,000 ppm PEL on 8-hr 

TWA; 6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 30 

minutes 

For equipment with which consumers 

might come into contact, such as retail 

food refrigerators and freezers, vending 

machines, household refrigerators and 

freezers, and room air conditioners, EPA 

performed a consumer exposure 

analysis. In this analysis, we examined 

potential catastrophic release of the 

entire charge of the substitute in one 

minute under a worst-case scenario. We 

did not examine exposure to consumers 

in very low temperature refrigeration, 

since such equipment is typically used 

in workplaces, such as in laboratories, 

and not in homes or public spaces. The 

analysis was undertaken to determine 

the 15-minute or 30-minute TWA 

exposure levels for the substitute, which 

were then compared to the toxicity 

limits to assess the risk to consumers. 

EPA considered toxicity limits for 

consumer exposure that reflect a shortterm exposure such as might occur at 

home or in a store or other public 

setting where a member of the general 

public could be exposed and could then 

escape. Specific toxicity limits that we 

used in our analysis of consumer 

exposure include: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• n-Butane: 6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 

30 minutes 

• HFC–32: cardiotoxic NOAEL of 

350,000 ppm over 5 minutes 

• Isobutane: 6,900 ppm over 30 

minutes 

• Propane: 6,900 ppm AEGL–1 over 

30 minutes 

The analysis of consumer exposure 

assumed that 100 percent of the unit’s 

charge would be released over one 

minute, at which time the concentration 

of refrigerant would peak in an enclosed 

space, and then steadily decline. 

Refrigerant concentrations were 

modeled under two air change 

scenarios, believed to represent the 

baseline of potential flow rates for a 

home or other public space, assuming 

flow rates of 2.5 and 4.5 air changes per 

hour (ACH) (Sheldon, 1989). The 

highest concentrations of the refrigerant 

occur in the lower stratum of the room 

when assuming the lower ventilation 

level of 2.5 ACH. Calculating the TWA 

exposure using 2.5 ACH results in a 

higher concentration than calculating 

the TWA exposure using 4.5 ACH. Even 

under the very conservative 

assumptions used in the consumer 

exposure modeling, the estimated 15- 

minute or 30-minute consumer 

exposures to the refrigerants are much 

lower than the relevant toxicity limits 

and thus should not pose a toxicity risk 

any greater than that of other acceptable 

refrigerants in the end-uses in this final 

rule. Other acceptable refrigerants pose 

similar toxicity risks. 

For further information, including 

EPA’s risk screens and risk assessments 

as well as fault tree analyses from the 

submitters of the substitutes, see docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

V. What are the differences between the 

proposed and final rules? 

This final rule lists all five refrigerants 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

in the same end-uses as in the proposed 

rule. This final rule retains the same use 

conditions as proposed for very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment; 

non-mechanical heat transfer 

equipment; retail food refrigeration, 

stand-alone equipment only; household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerator/freezers; and vending 

machines. 

For room AC units, EPA is retaining 

the same use conditions as proposed, 

with one exception. For portable AC 

units, EPA is not applying the proposed 

charge limits for PTAC, PTHP, and other 

floor mounted AC units, which are set 

forth in Table D. New Table E 

establishes charge limits for portable AC 

units, consistent with the requirements 

in Appendix F of UL 484, 8th Edition. 

This change allows larger charge sizes 

for small portable units than in the 

proposed rule and limits the charge size 

to no more than 2.45 kg of HFC–32, 300 

g of propane, or 330 g of R–441A. 

Proposed Table D was based on a 

different section of Appendix F of UL 

484, 8th Edition. EPA is making this 

change because we agree with 

commenters that the final rule should 

incorporate specific provisions for 

charge limits for portable units in UL 

484, which is the standard that is the 

basis of EPA’s other charge limits, as 

well. 

This final rule exempts the four 

hydrocarbon refrigerants for the enduses addressed in the proposed rule 

from the venting prohibition under 

Section 608. HFC–32 remains 

prohibited from being knowingly vented 

or otherwise knowingly released or 

disposed of by any person maintaining, 

servicing, repairing, or disposing 

appliances containing HFC–32. 

VI. What are EPA’s responses to public 

comments? 

A. EPA’s Acceptability Determinations 

1. R–441A 

Comment: The Environmental 

Investigation Agency-U.S. (EIA), an 

environmental organization, and A.S. 

Trust & Holdings, the submitter for R– 

441A, supported the listing of R–441A 

as an acceptable substitute in new 

stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment, residential and light 

commercial AC, and vending machines. 

EIA noted the climate benefits, 

improved energy efficiency, and 

reduced flammability for this 

refrigerant. 

Response: EPA agrees and thanks the 

commenters for their support of this 

listing decision. We are taking final 

action in this rule to list R–441A as 

acceptable subject to use conditions for 

use in new retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only); new 

residential and light commercial room 

AC units; and vending machines. 

Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings 

requested clarification as to whether 

EPA is approving the SNAP 

applications (i.e., submissions) for R– 

441A in household window AC units, 

vending machines, new commercial 

refrigerators, commercial freezers, and 

stand-alone refrigerated display cases, 

and new residential split-system AC 

units, residential heat pumps, and 

portable (floor) room air conditioners. 

Response: This final rule lists R–441A 

as acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

for use in (1) residential and light 

commercial room AC units, (2) vending 

machines, and (3) stand-alone retail 

food refrigeration equipment, including 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated 

display cases. These correspond to the 

submissions for R–441A for household 

window AC units, vending machines, 

new commercial refrigerators, 

commercial freezers, and stand-alone 

refrigerated display cases, and the 

portable room air conditioners portion 

of the submission for new residential 

split-system AC units, residential heat 

pumps, and portable room air 

conditioners. EPA is reviewing R–441A 

separately for new residential and light 

commercial split-system AC units and 

heat pumps, and so is not in this action 

listing R441A as acceptable in these 

uses at this time. 

2. Ethane 

Comment: EIA supported the listing 

of ethane as acceptable subject to use 

conditions for use in very low 

temperature refrigeration and nonmechanical heat transfer, and indicated 

that equipment using ethane is available 

that will reduce impacts on climate and 

cut energy use. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for listing ethane as acceptable 

subject to use conditions in very low 

temperature refrigeration and nonmechanical heat transfer. 

Comment: Hoshizaki America, a 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, questioned the 

test methods used to evaluate ethane’s 

flammability and fire safety. 

Response: The commenter provided 

no support for why they believed this 

was necessary or what, if anything else, 

they question in the test methods used 

to evaluate ethane. EPA evaluated 

flammability risks in the risk screen 

included in the docket (Docket ID EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0748–0004). This 

evaluation followed the standard 

approach for evaluating health and 

environmental risks that the SNAP 

program has used over its 20-year 

history. The results found worst-case 

leaks of ethane to result in 

concentrations far below the LFL of 

30,000 ppmv, showing a lack of 

flammability risk. We note that a use 

condition requires that the ethanecontaining equipment meet the 

requirements of Supplement SB to the 

10th edition of UL Standard 471 and 

this use condition will ensure ethane 

will be tested and will meet specific 

safety testing requirements. 

3. Isobutane 

Comment: EIA and a private citizen 

supported EPA’s proposal to list 

isobutane as acceptable subject to use 

conditions for the proposed end-uses 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19473 

and noted that it is already available 

and in use in the United States and 

global markets in vending machines and 

in stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment. Hoshizaki America 

questioned the listing of isobutane and 

does not agree that it should be listed as 

acceptable without proper safety 

analysis. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for listing isobutane as 

acceptable subject to use conditions in 

vending machines and stand-alone retail 

food refrigeration equipment. EPA 

evaluated flammability risks in the risk 

screens included in the docket (Docket 

ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0748–0013 and 

-0021). The commenter that suggested 

isobutane should not be listed provided 

no support for their statement and did 

not explain what they meant by ‘‘proper 

safety analysis.’’ EPA’s evaluations 

followed the standard approach for 

evaluating health and environmental 

risks that the SNAP program has used 

over its 20-year history. The results 

found leaks of isobutane in stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment and 

vending machines to result in 

concentrations far below the LFL of 

30,000 ppmv, showing a lack of 

flammability risk. We note that a use 

condition requires that retail food 

refrigeration equipment using isobutane 

meet the requirements of Supplement 

SB to the 10th edition of UL Standard 

471 and that vending machines using 

isobutane meet the requirements of 

Supplement SA to the 7th edition of UL 

Standard 541. This use condition will 

ensure isobutane is further tested in 

equipment and will meet specific safety 

testing requirements. 

4. HFC–32 

Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings; 

ComStar, a distributor of R–441A and 

other chemicals, and several private 

citizens expressed concerns with the 

listing of HFC–32 as an acceptable 

substitute in room AC units due to its 

toxicity, flammability, and high GWP 

relative to hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

These commenters said that HFC–32’s 

higher GWP, in combination with its 

flammability and other characteristics, 

is reason for not finding this substitute 

acceptable. Most of these commenters 

were specifically concerned, due to the 

GWP and toxicity of HFC–32, that EPA 

might exempt HFC–32 from the venting 

prohibition. EIA and Daikin, the 

submitter of HFC–32, supported listing 

HFC–32 as acceptable subject to use 

conditions. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support from the commenters who 

support listing HFC–32 as acceptable 

subject to use conditions for use in room 

AC units. 

EPA disagrees with the commenters 

who suggest that the toxicity, 

flammability and GWP of HFC–32 

indicate it should not be listed as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, for 

use in room AC units. The GWP of 

HFC–32 (675) is two-thirds less than 

that of the most commonly used 

alternative for this type of equipment, 

R–410A (approximately 2,090) and also 

significantly lower than that of HCFC– 

22 (1,810) and R–407C (approximately 

1,770). The only currently acceptable 

alternatives in this end-use with lower 

GWP include ammonia absorption and 

the non-vapor compression technologies 

evaporative cooling and desiccant 

cooling. However, there are technical 

limits on the effective use of the nonvapor compression technologies in 

different climates, and ammonia has a 

higher toxicity that HFC–32 and the 

other alternatives. HFC–32 also has a 

higher GWP than two other substitutes 

being listed in this end-use in this final 

rule—propane (GWP of 3) and R–441A 

(GWP of less than 5). However, it is 

considerably less flammable than either 

propane or R–441A. For example, HFC– 

32 has an LFL of 13.8% and a burning 

velocity of 6.7 cm/s compared to an LFL 

of 2.1% and a burning velocity of 46 

cm/s for propane and an LFL of 2.05% 

and a burning velocity of 47.6 cm/s for 

R–441A (Daikin, 2011; A.S. Trust & 

Holdings, 2012). EPA’s risk screen on 

the use of HFC–32 in residential and 

light commercial AC is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0748–0005). This 

risk screen indicates that HFC–32’s LFL 

is not reached where the charge size is 

consistent with the use conditions, so 

we do not expect a significant risk of 

fire. 

The commenters did not provide any 

information concerning why they 

believed that HFC–32 should be listed 

as unacceptable based on its toxicity; 

the commenters merely provided 

general information such as Material 

Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) without 

giving analysis specific to HFC–32. The 

potential health effects listed in the 

MSDSs provided by the commenters, 

such as freeze burns, anesthetic effects, 

and asphyxia, are common to many 

refrigerants already in the same end-use, 

such as HCFC–22, R–410A, or HFC– 

134a. Further, these health effects apply 

to both HFC–32 and to the two 

hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes that 

we are also listing in this action as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in 

this end-use, and the commenters did 

not raise concerns for the health effects 

for those substitutes. EPA’s risk screen 

evaluates exposure and toxicity risks. In 

the End-Use Exposure Assessment the 

modeled 15-minute and 30-minute 

TWA exposures for consumers were 

well below the relevant short-term limit, 

the cardiotoxic NOAEL for HFC–32, for 

all charge sizes. Based on the 

Occupational Risk Assessment, 

occupational exposure to HFC–32 is 

anticipated to be significantly below the 

STEL during servicing and installation. 

In addition, as discussed below in 

section VI.G, ‘‘Venting prohibition,’’ 

EPA did not propose, nor is it finalizing, 

an exemption to the venting prohibition 

for HFC–32. 

5. Propane 

Comment: EIA supported listing 

propane for use in all of EPA’s proposed 

end-uses (household refrigerators and 

freezers, vending machines, and room 

air conditioners), since hydrocarbons 

are already being used successfully in 

these types of equipment around the 

world. A private citizen agreed with the 

listing of propane specifically for AC 

units. Hozishaki America disagreed 

with the proposed listing of propane 

without proper safety analysis. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

comments supporting our decision to 

list propane as acceptable subject to use 

conditions in the proposed end-uses 

and agrees that hydrocarbons are 

already being used safely and 

successfully in such types of equipment 

around the world. 

The commenter opposing listing of 

propane provided no support for their 

statements and did not explain what 

they meant by ‘‘proper safety analysis.’’ 

EPA’s evaluations followed the standard 

approach for evaluating health and 

environmental risks that the SNAP 

program has used over its 20-year 

history. EPA performed risk screens on 

the use of propane in household 

refrigerators and freezers, vending 

machines, and room air conditioners 

which are available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (Docket IDs EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0748–0006, –0007, and 

–0008). EPA’s vending machine risk 

screen indicates that propane’s LFL is 

not reached in the typical scenario, and 

for room air conditioners and household 

refrigerators and freezers, worst-case 

concentrations would be well below 

propane’s LFL, showing a lack of 

flammability risk. We note that EPA is 

including a use condition that requires 

that household refrigerators and freezers 

using propane meet the requirements of 

Supplement SA to the 10th edition of 

UL Standard 250, that vending 

machines using propane meet the 

requirements of Supplement SA to the 

7th edition of UL Standard 541, and that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

20Similarly, EPA previously listed propane as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, in stand-alone 

retail food refrigeration equipment, including a 

condition requiring that such equipment meet the 

requirements of Supplement SB to the 10th edition 

of UL Standard 471. December 20, 2011; 76 FR 

78832. 

21Ravishankara, A. R., A. A. Turnipseed, N. R. 

Jensen, S. Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. 

Solomon. 1994. Do hydrofluorocarbons destroy 

stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71–75. 

room air conditioners meet the 

requirements of Supplement A and 

Appendices B through F of the 8th 

edition of UL Standard 484.20

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that propane should be added 

to the list of acceptable substitutes for 

the very low temperature refrigeration 

end-use, particularly since it could be 

used with the same UL 471 Standard as 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Response: EPA did not receive a 

submission and thus has not evaluated 

propane for the very low temperature 

refrigeration end-use. EPA may consider 

it in a future rulemaking action. 

B. Environmental and Public Health 

Impacts 

1. GWP and Direct Climate Impacts 

Comment: The Alliance for 

Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the 

Alliance), California’s Air Resources 

Board (CARB), EIA, the Institute of 

Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), and 

private citizens stated that the proposed 

list of substitutes is an important step 

towards mitigating the industry’s 

environmental impact, specifically by 

broadening availability of substitutes 

that would reduce GHG emissions from 

the refrigeration and AC sector. CARB 

estimates that if the proposed low-GWP 

refrigerants replace the high-GWP HFCs 

in the identified end-use sectors, 

nationwide annual emissions of GHGs 

would be reduced by between 9 and 11 

million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents (MMTCO2eq). CARB also 

stated that while the reductions are a 

modest three percent decrease from 

current fluorinated gas emissions, they 

believe the proposal is an important 

step in mitigating the anticipated 

growth in emissions of HFCs. 

Response: EPA agrees that listing 

these five substitutes as acceptable 

subject to use conditions in the 

specified end-uses is an important step 

towards mitigating GHG emissions and 

the anticipated growth in emissions of 

HFCs. We thank the commenter for the 

calculated estimate of the potential 

environmental benefits associated with 

this rule. We do not know if the market 

penetration for these newly-listed 

alternatives will align with the 

assumptions used by CARB in 

developing their estimates. However, we 

agree that the entrance of these 

alternatives into the market and the 

decrease in use of higher GWP 

alternatives will mitigate climate 

impacts from the end-uses addressed in 

this rule. 

2. Energy Efficiency and Indirect 

Climate Impacts 

Comment: CARB and EIA stated that 

the use of low-GWP hydrocarbon 

refrigerants also indirectly reduces GHG 

emissions through decreased energy 

use. In contrast, Master-Bilt Products, a 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, said that some 

of the proposed alternatives have poor 

energy efficiency. 

Response: EPA agrees with CARB and 

EIA that, based on the available 

information, the hydrocarbon 

refrigerants may decrease energy use 

and thereby reduce GHG emissions 

indirectly. Each submission provided 

information showing reduced energy 

consumption when using the alternative 

refrigerants listed in this rule (Daikin, 

2011; A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012; A/S 

Vestfrost, 2012; CHEAA, 2013). 

However, we note that the specific 

energy benefits will depend on a 

number of factors other than the 

refrigerant, such as the design of the 

equipment and efforts made to fine-tune 

the equipment once it is installed. 

Master-Bilt did not submit any specific 

information regarding energy efficiency 

and EPA is not aware of information 

supporting a claim that any of the 

refrigerants being listed have poor 

energy efficiency. 

3. Ozone Depletion 

Comment: A private citizen stated 

that ‘‘hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants 

and CHFC [sic] refrigerants all have 

significant, demonstrated negative 

impacts on our atmospheric ozone, 

while hydrocarbons have no effect on 

stratospheric ozone depletion.’’ The 

commenter also stated that ‘‘[i]t is 

accepted fact that these synthetic 

fluorinated gases including HFC–32 

rapidly accumulate in the atmosphere 

destroying ozone by breaking molecular 

bonds of O3’’ and requested that EPA 

remove HFC–32 from the rule. 

Response: The role of HCFCs in ozone 

depletion is well-documented (WMO, 

2010) and these substances are in the 

process of being phased out of 

production and consumption globally in 

steps. EPA agrees that hydrocarbons do 

not contribute to stratospheric ozone 

depletion. However, we disagree with 

the commenter’s statement that HFC 

refrigerants have significant, 

demonstrated negative impact on 

atmospheric ozone or that they break 

molecular bonds of ozone. On the 

contrary, HFCs have long been 

considered to have a negligible impact 

on stratospheric ozone depletion 

(Ravishankara et al, 1994; 21 WMO, 

2010). Thus, EPA considers the impact 

of HFCs on the ozone layer to be 

comparable to those of hydrocarbons. 

4. Local Air Quality Impacts 

Comment: Regarding the air quality 

modeling using CMAQ, A.S. Trust & 

Holdings stated that that the assumption 

of rapid transition to all hydrocarbon 

refrigerants (in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3) is 

not a viable assumption, and disregards 

simple market realities. CARB referred 

to Scenarios 1 through 3 as upper-bound 

maximums that are not expected to 

occur. 

Response: In Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 of 

the air quality analysis (ICF, 2014a), 

isobutane or propylene were assumed to 

be the only refrigerant used, 

respectively, in (1) all refrigeration and 

air conditioning uses, (2) all 

refrigeration and air conditioning uses 

except for MVAC, or (3) all refrigeration 

and air conditioning uses except for 

MVAC and large commercial chillers. 

EPA agrees that these scenarios are not 

likely to occur. These scenarios were 

not intended to project what is likely to 

happen in the market, but rather, to 

provide screening estimates to see if 

there would be some level of refrigerant 

emissions that could result in 

unacceptably high increases in groundlevel ozone. The modeling indicated 

that widespread use of isobutane, 

propane, R–441A, and other saturated 

hydrocarbon refrigerants are not likely 

to result in significant increases in 

ground-level ozone concentrations. In 

contrast, the screening estimates in 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 indicated that 

there could be significant increases in 

ground-level ozone concentrations if use 

(and emissions) of propylene were 

widespread. Thus, further analysis of 

potential air quality impacts based on 

likely use of propylene in the market 

may be needed for evaluating propylene 

or refrigerants containing propylene in 

any future action in which EPA 

considers listing propylene for these 

end-uses. 

Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings 

commented that the air quality 

modeling focuses on only one year 

(2005) of meteorological data. The 

commenter stated it is standard practice 

in ambient air modeling studies to focus 

on typically five years of meteorological 

data to provide a more representative 

sample of conditions on different days 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19475 

and thus reduce the uncertainties in the 

analysis. 

Response: It is standard practice to 

use five years of meteorological data in 

regulatory analyses where the 

assessment is for a single facility or 

small group of facilities seeking an air 

quality permit, such as a permit for 

prevention of significant deterioration, 

authority to construct, or air 

contaminant discharge. However, in 

state implementation plans or 

nationwide regulatory impact 

assessments where an entire state or the 

continental United States is modeled, a 

full ozone season or a single year of 

meteorology is generally considered 

sufficient (EPA, 2007). In the case of the 

CMAQ analysis performed for this rule, 

modeling was performed based upon 

refrigerant emissions from the entire 

United States and thus, use of one year 

of meteorological data was appropriate. 

Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings 

noted that specific hydrocarbon 

refrigerants were not separately 

modeled in the air quality model. This 

commenter states that each refrigerant 

should be assessed separately by the 

Agency and that it does not seem 

reasonable to regulate a single 

refrigerant based on a whole family of 

refrigerants. This commenter also stated 

that it is difficult to make any 

substantial conclusions regarding 

propylene without assessing the more 

realistic Scenario 4. CARB stated that 

Scenario 4 of the analysis is a good 

representation of anticipated emissions 

and useful for assessing the potential 

ozone impacts of the proposal. This 

commenter also stated that the small 

estimated impact based on national 

modeling is consistent with its own 

estimate of the magnitude of potential 

emission increases and the lower ozone 

formation potential of the hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. 

Response: Scenario 4 is a scenario 

that analyzed potential air quality 

impacts of hydrocarbon refrigerants in a 

set of end-uses that would be more 

likely to use hydrocarbon refrigerants 

between now and 2030. These included 

end-uses for which UL currently has 

standards in place, for which the SNAP 

program has already listed hydrocarbon 

refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, or for which the SNAP 

program is reviewing a submission, 

including those end-uses addressed in 

this final rule. EPA agrees with the 

second commenter that this scenario is 

useful for assessing the potential ozone 

impacts of the proposal. 

We disagree with the first commenter 

that EPA should have assessed each 

refrigerant separately in Scenario 4 as 

we did in the bounding Scenarios 1, 2, 

and 3. We are listing a number of 

refrigerants as acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, in several end-uses and we 

expect that they all will be present in 

the market and in the atmosphere at the 

same time. The interactions of the 

different compounds in the atmosphere 

are interdependent and are not linear. 

Modeling each refrigerant separately 

would result in a less realistic, and for 

some refrigerants an unrealistically low, 

estimate of environmental impacts. The 

current air quality analysis found that 

the peak 8-hr ozone increase of 0.15 ppb 

for Los Angeles is about 75% associated 

with the use of propylene as a 

refrigerant and 21% from propane under 

Scenario 4 (ICF, 2014a, p. 10). 

5. Trifluoroacetic Acid 

Comment: The Australian 

Refrigeration Association (ARA) stated 

that the toxic buildup of trifluoroacetic 

acid (TFA) (which they claimed is a 

byproduct of HFC–32 decomposition) in 

fragile eco-systems is not reversible. 

This commenter also stated that if TFA 

levels are allowed to build up until 

algae and plant life is destroyed, it will 

be too late to prevent the collapse of the 

food chain and global catastrophe. The 

same commenter also noted that even 

before catastrophic levels are reached, 

crop yields and marine life will be 

adversely affected. 

Response: Available information 

indicates that TFA is not a byproduct of 

the decomposition of HFC–32 

(Wellington and Nielsen, 1999, as cited 

in ICF, 2015a). We note that even if TFA 

were a minimal byproduct of HFC–32, 

HFC–32 would not pose significantly 

greater risk than other available 

substitutes because TFA is generated by 

some other acceptable substitutes used 

in the same end-uses as in this rule. 

C. Toxicity 

1. Toxicity of Proposed Refrigerants 

Comment: Master-Bilt Products stated 

that the non-drop-in alternatives 

available and proposed by EPA have 

many negative characteristics including 

toxicity. The commenter stated that as a 

result, much more testing is going to be 

required now than was required with 

the switch from CFCs to HFCs. This 

commenter stated that before these 

newly redesigned products can be sold, 

many additional steps will need to take 

place, such as upgrading appliance 

manufacturing facilities; training service 

technicians in using toxic refrigerants; 

achieving customer acceptance of 

having toxic refrigerants in their 

facilities, near their employees and 

customers, and around their food 

products; an expansion in capacity of 

testing companies such as UL, the 

Canadian Standards Association, and 

Intertek; and updating building codes to 

allow for toxic refrigerants. 

Response: EPA recognizes that steps 

by industry and government such as 

physical upgrades to equipment 

manufacturer facilities, capital 

investments, technician training, thirdparty testing of equipment, and 

revisions to building codes may be 

needed before manufacturers of 

refrigeration equipment and their 

customers will be able to adopt the 

refrigerants listed in this final rule. We 

also recognize that finalizing this rule 

removes regulatory uncertainty about 

EPA’s requirements for use of these 

refrigerants in the listed end-uses, 

another required step before these 

refrigerants will be adopted. 

Concerning toxicity of the proposed 

refrigerants, our risk screens find that 

even a worst-case release of isobutane or 

R–441A from stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment will not result 

in exceeding exposure limits such as the 

TLVs of 1,000 ppm for isobutane or for 

the four components of R–441A or the 

relevant short-term exposure limits for 

these compounds. Similarly, for 

propane in household refrigerators and 

freezers, a worst-case release would not 

exceed exposure limits such as the 

AEGL–1 of 6,900 ppm for propane. For 

vending machines, propane, isobutane, 

and the components of R–441A do not 

exceed exposure limits in the typical 

scenario, such as the AEGL–1 of 6,900 

ppm for propane. We found similar 

results for the other types of equipment 

in this rule, as discussed above in 

Section IV.C, ‘‘Toxicity and 

asphyxiation.’’ Thus, the refrigerants 

that we are finding acceptable subject to 

use conditions present comparable 

toxicity risk to other acceptable 

refrigerants already used in these enduses. 

Comment: A private citizen stated 

that EPA should confirm there is no 

health threat to society before approving 

this rule. 

Response: EPA has assessed risks to 

human health and the environment— 

including the flammability and toxicity, 

considering exposure to workers, 

consumers, and the general public of 

each substitute listed in this final rule. 

In addition, we have evaluated the 

environmental impacts, including 

potential increases in generation of 

ground-level ozone, impacts on the 

ozone layer and global climate, all of 

which can impact human health. Based 

on these assessments, we have 

determined that the human health risks 

of the listed refrigerants are comparable 

to or less than those from other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

acceptable refrigerants in the same enduses. 

2. Toxicity of Decomposition Products 

of HFC–32 

Comment: ARA and A.S. Trust & 

Holdings expressed concern about the 

potential for HFC–32 to decompose into 

hydrogen fluoride (HF), carbonyl 

fluoride, and other toxic chemicals 

because it is a fluorocarbon refrigerant. 

A.S. Trust & Holdings suggested that 

HFC–32 should not be acceptable 

because of the toxicity of its 

decomposition products. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 

potential for toxic decomposition 

products from HFC–32, when used 

consistent with the established use 

conditions, creates a risk more 

significant than the risks posed by other 

available refrigerants in the same enduses. The risks of decomposition 

products from HFC–32 in room air 

conditioners are no greater than that 

from currently used refrigerants such as 

HCFC–22 or R–410A, all of which 

contain fluorine. Indeed, the most 

commonly used acceptable alternative 

refrigerant for room air conditioners, R– 

410A, is a blend that contains 50% 

HFC–32. 

It is true that hydrocarbon refrigerants 

do not contain fluorine and thus do not 

have the potential for the same toxic 

byproducts such as HF or carbonyl 

fluoride. However, the risk of generating 

HF only exists when HFC–32 burns. 

Even in the worst-case scenario in our 

risk screen for use of HFC–32 in room 

AC units, the concentration of HFC–32 

would not exceed 69% of the LFL. 

Therefore, the flammability risks of 

HFC–32, and the related potential to 

generate HF are extremely low. Based 

on analysis of all of the relevant health 

and environmental factors, EPA 

concluded that HFC–32 does not 

present a significantly higher risk to 

human health or the environment than 

other currently or potentially available 

substitutes in the room AC end-use. 

D. Flammability 

Comment: Traulsen, a manufacturer 

of commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and Hoshizaki America, believed there 

has been an incomplete safety 

assessment for listing flammable 

substitutes as acceptable. The North 

American Association of Food 

Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM) 

requested that the Agency reevaluate the 

safety and enforcement issues that must 

be addressed before flammable 

refrigerants are ubiquitous in the 

marketplace. Hoshizaki America 

requested further testing and analysis on 

actual machines to provide more 

concrete evidence that there is no 

significant risk for this use. This 

commenter specifically questioned the 

test method used for the flammability 

and fire safety for isobutane and ethane 

and disagreed with the listing of 

isobutane or propane without proper 

safety analysis. 

Response: EPA agrees that 

flammability is an important 

consideration with regard to substitutes 

evaluated in this rulemaking. EPA 

evaluated the safety of these refrigerants 

prior to issuing the proposal for this 

rule. EPA believes flammability risks 

can be mitigated to ensure the 

substitutes can be used as safely as other 

available substitutes in these uses. EPA 

also notes that more than 400 million 

hydrocarbon refrigerators are in use 

worldwide, as well as millions of 

smaller residential air conditioners 

using hydrocarbons or HFC–32. Reports 

of refrigerator ignition incidents 

resulting from leaked hydrocarbons 

have been rare. To determine whether 

the refrigerants would present 

flammability concerns for consumers or 

for workers, including those servicing or 

disposing of appliances. 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 

refrigerant equipment. EPA also 

conducted risk screens, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking, evaluating 

reasonable worst-case and more typical, 

yet conservative, scenarios to model the 

effects of the sudden release of the 

refrigerants. This final rule establishes 

maximum charge sizes for each type of 

equipment, and analysis for each of the 

substitutes revealed that even if the 

unit’s full charge were emitted within 

one minute, the concentration would 

not reach the LFL for that refrigerant. 

The listings of ethane, HFC–32, 

isobutane, propane, and R–441A as 

acceptable, subject to use conditions, 

will allow manufacturers to develop 

equipment that will use these 

substitutes as refrigerants. It is not 

necessary for EPA to pre-test the actual 

equipment as part of its threshold 

analysis of whether refrigerants, used 

consistent with the use conditions, will 

pose a flammability risk of concern. In 

addition, we note that the use 

conditions required by this rule include 

testing requirements in the relevant UL 

standards which are intended, among 

other things, to ensure that any leaks 

will result in concentrations well below 

the LFL, and that potential ignition 

sources will not be able to create 

temperatures high enough to start a fire. 

EPA believes risks can be mitigated to 

ensure the substitutes can be used as 

safely as other available substitutes. 

EPA believes that complying with the 

use conditions listed in this final action, 

as well as with use conditions listed in 

previous SNAP rules, reduces overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment. These use conditions will 

ensure the substitutes are further tested 

in equipment and will meet specific 

safety testing requirements. 

EPA believes that (1) these 

evaluations have followed standard 

SNAP methods and showed low risk, (2) 

our decisions rely on consensus-based 

safety standards developed specifically 

to test and to assure safe use of 

flammable refrigerants, and (3) the 

required use conditions reduce the 

flammability risk associated with the 

listed substitutes. For these reasons, 

these alternatives provide lower overall 

risk to human health and the 

environment than other available or 

potentially available alternatives in very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment, non-mechanical heat 

transfer, retail food refrigeration 

equipment (stand-alone units only), 

vending machines, room air 

conditioners and household 

refrigerators and freezers. In response to 

the comment requesting EPA to 

‘‘evaluate the safety and enforcement 

issues that must be addressed before 

flammable refrigerants are ubiquitous in 

the marketplace,’’ we note that the 

commenter did not elaborate on what it 

meant regarding ‘‘enforcement issues.’’ 

We considered compliance concerns as 

we developed the proposed and final 

rule. For example, EPA notes elsewhere 

in this final rule that placing the 

responsibility on the manufacturer to 

design equipment that restricts the 

maximum refrigerant charge based upon 

the cooling capacity needed provides a 

better means for EPA to ensure 

compliance with the use conditions and 

thus to ensure that the risk to human 

health will not be greater than that 

posed by other available substitutes. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

the flammability of HFC–32. A.S. Trust 

& Holdings indicated surprise at the 

charge size allowed for HFC–32, as 

provided in the proposed use 

conditions, given its flammability. ARA 

states that HFC–32 is extremely 

flammable and notes the high ignition 

temperature of HFC–32. ComStar 

believes HFC–32’s flammability, and 

proposed high refrigerant charges in 

indoor systems, are compelling reasons 

to keep HFC–32 out of all indoor 

refrigerant applications. 

Response: As discussed above in 

section VI.A.4, HFC–32 is significantly 

less flammable than the other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19477 

refrigerants considered in this 

rulemaking for use in room AC 

equipment. The charge sizes are 

calculated using the same formulas from 

UL 484 as those for propane and R– 

441A. The charge size is larger for HFC– 

32 because it has a much higher (safer) 

LFL. 

Comment: Enertech Global, a 

manufacturer of heat pumps, noted that 

one disadvantage of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants is their flammability. 

However, the commenter believes that 

careful design, manufacturing, and use 

can ensure ‘‘safe operation and handling 

in every step of the value chain.’’ Daikin 

has sold approximately three million 

units worldwide and indicated that it is 

unaware of any incidents where the 

refrigerant ignited during installation, 

servicing, or removal of these systems. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

in Sweden, more than 100,000 packaged 

heat pumps that use flammable 

refrigerants have been used in safe 

operation for over two decades. Daikin 

noted that service technician training 

materials already developed could 

reduce flammability risks associated 

with hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

flammability risks of concern with 

hydrocarbon refrigerants can be 

adequately managed through proper 

design, controls, and use conditions. 

EPA also believes that service 

technician training materials will help 

provide protection and minimize risks 

associated with hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. The safe operating history 

of millions of HFC–32 AC units and 

more than 100,000 packaged heat 

pumps that use flammable refrigerants 

is encouraging. 

Comment: NAFEM, ICOR 

International (ICOR), Traulsen, and 

Hoshizaki America expressed various 

other concerns regarding the 

flammability of proposed substitutes in 

the heating, ventilation, air conditioning 

and refrigeration (HVACR) industry 

including: the capital costs associated 

with using flammable refrigerants; the 

need to redesign equipment; the lack of 

awareness and training for service 

personnel and consumers; the need for 

proper technician training; and industry 

codes and standards. NAFEM and ICOR 

expressed concerns for the technicians 

being able to recognize potential 

ignition sources. 

Response: Refrigeration and AC 

equipment manufacturers are not 

required to use any of the flammable 

refrigerants listed as acceptable subject 

to use conditions in this action; we 

expect that those who choose to do so 

will make appropriate capital 

investments in their facilities. For 

example, EPA would expect private 

sector investments in safety upgrades 

similar to those made when we listed 

certain hydrocarbon refrigerants 

previously for household refrigerators 

and freezers and stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment. In addition, 

manufacturers would need to invest in 

training their staff in safe handling of 

flammable refrigerants, including how 

to recognize ignition sources. For 

example, technicians need to be aware 

that standard refrigerant recovery 

equipment manufactured for nonflammable refrigerants should not be 

used for recovering flammable 

refrigerants, because even though it 

technically is capable of recovering 

many of these hydrocarbons at similar 

pressure levels, such equipment may 

lack adequate explosion proofing or 

non-sparking parts. Further, they need 

to be aware that plugging or unplugging 

either the refrigeration and AC 

equipment or electrical refrigerant 

recovery equipment is an ignition 

source. In addition, we note that many 

of the use conditions, such as the 

labeling and colored hoses, are for the 

express purpose of ensuring that 

technicians are aware that the 

refrigerant is flammable. 

Second, EPA believes that greater 

awareness of the presence, risks, and 

benefits of flammable refrigerants 

among consumers, industry code- and 

standard-setting organizations, fire 

marshals, and first responders will lead 

to a smoother, safer transition to 

flammable refrigerants. EPA is working 

with standards setting organizations 

such as UL and ASHRAE and with 

technician certifying organizations to 

improve the level of knowledge of 

technicians. EPA also intends to update 

the test bank for technician certification 

under Section 608 of the CAA, and 

could include additional questions on 

the safe handling of flammable 

refrigerants. EPA will seek additional 

information and guidance on how best 

to incorporate this content through a 

separate process outside of this rule. 

Comment: NAFEM and ICOR 

expressed concern about what to do 

when a leak occurs and a trained 

technician is not present. NAFEM 

suggested that EPA should consider 

other foreseeable conditions in which 

flammable refrigerants are used, and 

specify precautionary measures in 

situations such as a leak where no 

trained technician is present. 

Response: We expect that owners of 

this kind of equipment will follow the 

manufacturer’s recommendations for 

safe use and, for retail food refrigeration 

and other commercial equipment, 

OSHA requirements, as discussed in our 

risk screens for each refrigerant and 

end-use (ICF, 2014b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k). 

These would assist the owner in 

planning for situations where there is a 

leak of flammable refrigerant but no 

trained technician is available. For retail 

food refrigeration equipment and very 

low temperature refrigeration 

equipment, such plans could include 

training staff to recognize signs of leaks 

(e.g., odors, sounds, reduced cooling 

ability, and alarm signals where there is 

leak monitoring equipment) and to 

actively seek steps to remove or avoid 

ignition sources (e.g., post signs 

prohibiting smoking or open flames, 

avoid plugging in or unplugging 

electrical equipment when a leak is 

suspected). For household appliances, 

consumers would have guidance 

provided by the equipment 

manufacturer in the owner’s manual. In 

addition, we note that the use 

conditions provide additional safety 

measures that make equipment owners, 

consumers, and emergency first 

responders aware of the presence of a 

flammability risk and that minimize the 

risk that refrigerant concentrations 

would reach flammable or explosive 

levels. 

Comment: NAFEM noted that some 

local building and fire safety codes still 

do not allow even small quantities of 

flammable refrigerants and that 

manufacturers will be forced to 

maintain their current use of R–134a 

and R–404A until states and 

municipalities update their codes. 

Traulsen believed that all issues 

regarding codes, standards, safe 

handling and venting can and should be 

resolved before the option to switch to 

a flammable refrigerant is the only 

choice available to a manufacturer or 

equipment purchaser. 

Response: This current rule expands 

rather than limits the refrigerant choices 

available in each of the proposed enduses; thus, no one is restricted to using 

a flammable refrigerant in those enduses. There are multiple acceptable 

nonflammable refrigerants available for 

use in these end-uses. Government and 

industry cooperation, such as the task 

force formed to examine and work 

towards updating building codes to 

allow use of alternative refrigerants, has 

begun to address barriers to revising 

building codes. However, in the absence 

of any flammable refrigerant being 

acceptable for use, government and 

other code-setting bodies may not have 

an incentive to revise codes to address 

the use of flammable refrigerants. EPA 

supports the concept of a national 

training program for flammable 

refrigerants and welcomes industry 

efforts to educate technicians on proper 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

refrigerant use and proper service and 

disposal practices, including safe 

handling and venting. 

Comment: NAFEM is concerned the 

rulemaking will result in danger to the 

public as flammable refrigerants are 

forced into certain market applications. 

Response: This rule does not require 

the use of flammable refrigerants; other, 

non-flammable refrigerants remain 

available for use in each of the end-uses 

addressed in this action. Further, as 

discussed in the proposed rule and 

elsewhere in the preamble to the final 

rule, this action requires that when the 

listed flammable refrigerants are used in 

the specific end-uses, they will be used 

under specific conditions that will 

mitigate the flammability risks. 

Comment: Hoshizaki America 

requested that refrigerants used in the 

commercial refrigeration sector be from 

the A1 group. The commenter noted 

that refrigerant manufacturers are in the 

phase of gaining approval of 

nonflammable refrigerants that have low 

GWPs. The commenter claims that these 

refrigerants would be near drop-in 

replacements with added efficiency 

benefits. Structural Concepts, a 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, requested EPA 

to approve R–448A, R–449A, and R– 

450A (nonflammable refrigerant blends 

of HFOs and HFCs) for the stand-alone, 

supermarket, and condensing unit enduses. 

Response: There are multiple nonflammable A1 refrigerants listed as 

acceptable for commercial refrigeration 

(retail food refrigeration and vending 

machines), including CO2 and, as 

mentioned by the commenter, R–450A, 

a non-flammable refrigerant blend that 

performs very similarly to HFC–134a 

but with a lower GWP. As of the writing 

of this final rule, EPA was still 

reviewing submissions for R–448A and 

R–449A. 

Comment: Hoshizaki America noted 

that stand-alone refrigeration equipment 

is well-known for having low 

probability of field leaks as leaks in 

such equipment would prevent the 

equipment from maintaining safe 

temperature for food. Due to low 

probability of leaks, the commenter 

believes the evaluation of commercial 

refrigeration products should be 

considered separate from other fields 

which exhibit larger leakage to the 

atmosphere. 

Response: EPA agrees that stand-alone 

refrigeration equipment is less likely to 

leak than other types of refrigeration 

equipment, such as remote systems. 

This final rule lists a number of 

flammable refrigerants acceptable, 

subject to use conditions, for use in 

stand-alone refrigeration equipment 

such as stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment, 

and household refrigerators, freezers, 

and combination refrigerator/freezers. 

We note that for purposes of our review, 

we consider each end-use separately. 

E. Use Conditions 

1. New Equipment Only; Not Intended 

for Use a Retrofit Alternative 

Comment: Traulsen, ISRI, and 

Hudson Technologies, a refrigerant 

reclaimer, supported limiting the use of 

the substitutes to new equipment. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for our proposal to establish use 

conditions to limit the use of the 

substitutes to new equipment only and 

agrees with the commenters. EPA is 

including this use condition in this final 

action. 

2. Compliance With UL Standards 

Comment: AHRI, DuPont, and GE 

Appliances stated that the UL 484 

Standard (for room AC units) is being 

revised to match the fourth edition of 

IEC 60335–2–40, and that these 

revisions will likely include a reduced 

allowable charge level for flammable 

refrigerants. According to the 

commenters, this reduction was 

determined to be necessary for safe use 

by a group of U.S. experts. The new 

limit is determined by the equation 

‘‘Charge limit = 3 m3 × LFL, where LFL 

is the lower flammable limit in kg/m3

for the refrigerant used.’’ The 

commenters noted that the charge level 

is small enough that restriction based on 

room size is not necessary. As such, the 

commenters recommended that EPA 

modify the methodology used to 

determine maximum charge level and 

revise the 3rd paragraph of use 

conditions as follows: 

‘‘The charge size for the entire air 

conditioner must not exceed the 

maximum refrigerant mass determined 

according to Appendix F of UL 484, 8th 

edition for the room size where the air 

conditioner is used. The charge size for 

these three refrigerants must in no case 

exceed 918 g (32.4 oz or 2.02 lb) of 

HFC–32; 114 g (4.0 oz or 0.25 lbs) of 

propane; or 123 g (4.3 oz or 0.27 lb) of 

R–441A..’’ [The previous sentence is in 

place of the proposed statements, ‘‘The 

charge size for these three refrigerants 

must in no case exceed 7960 g (280.8 oz 

or 17.55 lb) of HFC–32; 1000 g (35.3 oz 

or 2.21 lb) of propane; or 1000 g (35.3 

oz or 2.21 lb) of R–441A. The 

manufacturer must design a charge size 

for the entire air conditioner that does 

not exceed the amount specified for the 

unit’s cooling capacity, as specified in 

Table A, B, C, or D of this appendix.’’]. 

The commenters note that they expect 

the next revision to UL 484 to be 

published by the end of 2014 or early 

2015. 

Response: EPA understands that the 

consensus-based standards that are the 

basis of the use conditions in the 

proposed rule are under review and may 

change in the future. This is true for all 

standards controlled by an active 

organization such as UL. EPA does not 

believe that it would be appropriate to 

adopt use conditions to reflect standards 

that are not yet final and may still be 

subject to change. EPA believes the 

consensus-based standards it relied 

upon are protective of human health, 

rest upon sound science and reflect the 

currently used and accepted guidelines 

in the appliance industry. Our risk 

screens found that equipment that met 

EPA’s proposed charge limits based on 

the current, 8th Edition of UL 484 did 

not exceed the LFL or exposure limits 

for each of the three refrigerants 

proposed for use in room AC units, even 

in relatively small spaces. If UL 484 is 

revised in the future, or if other 

information becomes available that 

would support a change in charge size 

limits, particularly to address specific 

risks, EPA remains open to revising the 

charge size use condition and/or the 

specific edition of the UL standard, 

whether in response to a petition or in 

an action initiated by EPA. 

Furthermore, the commenters did not 

provide any technical support for the 

changes they anticipate will be made to 

the UL 484 Standard, nor do they 

provide information demonstrating that 

the charge sizes we proposed present 

unacceptable risks. We also note that 

while the commenters suggest that the 

charge size they anticipate will be 

included in a revision to the UL 484 

Standard will be small enough that no 

restrictions based on room size would 

be needed, our understanding is that the 

current UL 484 standard includes 

formulas for charge limits based upon a 

peer-reviewed study (Kataoka et al., 

2000) and the IEC 60335–2–40 Standard 

(EPA, 2015). 

By relying on the existing UL 

standard, EPA remains consistent with 

our approach in listing other flammable 

refrigerants acceptable, subject to use 

conditions, including charge size limits 

(76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011) as set 

forth in the applicable UL standards at 

the time of our final listing action. 

We believe that reliance on current 

standards, developed with a focus on 

U.S. products and applications, are 

more appropriate than potential future 

standards that have not yet been 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19479 

adopted. We believe reliance on existing 

standards provides certainty for 

manufacturers, while reducing the 

flammability risks that may exist due to 

use of the flammable refrigerants listed 

in this action. While charge size limits 

may change in the future, EPA cannot 

anticipate the timing or extent of such 

changes. 

Should a manufacturer seek UL 

approval of their equipment in a 

possible future where the standard has 

changed, they would need to meet both 

the use conditions EPA has finalized 

today and meet the presumably more 

restrictive requirements of the UL 

standard applicable at the time they are 

seeking UL approval. We also note that 

should a manufacturer choose to adopt 

one of the refrigerants covered by 

today’s action, they must decide what 

charge size they will design their 

equipment for and may choose any 

charge size equal to or below the 

maximums set under today’s action. 

Comment: The Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and 

the Alliance stated that EPA should 

work towards a harmonized 

international standard. UL noted their 

organization’s work towards 

harmonizing standards through the 

introduction of the UL 60335–2–40 

Standard. This commenter suggested 

that EPA allow compliance with both 

the UL 484 and the UL 60335–2–40 

Standards. UL also clarified that the UL 

484 Standard will eventually be 

withdrawn and replaced with the UL 

60335–2–40 Standard, possibly in 2020. 

Response: EPA appreciates 

information regarding efforts that may 

result in the withdrawal of UL 484 and 

its being replaced by UL 60335–2–40 

perhaps by 2020. As provided in the 

previous response, however, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to rely on the 

existing UL 484 Standard in this final 

rule. If UL 484 is replaced with UL 

60335–2–40 in the future or is otherwise 

modified, EPA remains open to revising 

the use condition, whether in response 

to a petition or in an action initiated by 

EPA. Regarding the comment that the 

use condition allows compliance with 

either UL 484 or UL 60335–2–40, we 

note that today there are some 

differences in labeling requirements and 

in the specific tests to be performed that 

could lead to confusion and difficulty in 

enforcing requirements of two standards 

simultaneously. Moreover, as noted in 

our previous response, EPA’s consistent 

practice for flammable refrigerants has 

been to base the use conditions on the 

applicable UL standard. 

Comment: Daikin notes a discrepancy 

between UL 484, which allows for 

limited ducts used in PTAC 

installations, and the EPA footnote 10, 

which indicates that no ducts can be 

used for PTACs using HFC–32. This 

commenter believes that the UL 484 

standard should be followed, as ducts 

present no additional fire risk in 

systems with hermetically sealed 

refrigerant loops. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenter that UL 484 does allow for 

limited ducts in PTAC installations, 

contrary to footnote 10 in the preamble 

to the proposal. In this final action, we 

are clarifying by correcting that footnote 

to be consistent with the 8th edition of 

the UL 484 standard by removing the 

statement about ducts. 

Comment: Traulsen recommends that 

EPA consider that equipment being 

manufactured specifically for markets 

outside the United States is governed by 

the applicable standards and guidelines 

of those countries. The commenter 

states that the proposed use conditions 

would restrict a manufacturer’s ability 

to place a product on the market in 

another country. The commenter 

encourages the EPA to allow flexibility 

for products to be sold into global 

markets, providing that such equipment 

is clearly marked for export purposes 

only. For example, Traulsen requested 

that equipment manufactured 

exclusively for export only be subject to 

the charge sizes in regulations 

applicable to the destination country. 

Response: Under Section 612 of the 

CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations in Subpart G of 40 CFR part 

82, the SNAP program is applicable to 

any person introducing a substitute into 

interstate commerce. This applies to the 

introduction into interstate commerce of 

any appliances produced in the United 

States, including appliances that will be 

exported. EPA has previously 

responded to comments about the 

applicability of the SNAP program to 

products destined for export. Most 

recently, in a final rule issued December 

20, 2011, EPA responded to a comment 

concerning whether appliances 

manufactured for export should be 

allowed to have larger charge sizes than 

those being sold in the United States 

(and thus not have to comply with the 

use conditions being established in that 

rule). EPA stated that: 

Under Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the 

SNAP program is applicable to any person 

introducing a substitute into interstate 

commerce. Interstate commerce is defined in 

40 CFR 82.104(n) as: The distribution or 

transportation of any product between one 

state, territory, possession or the District of 

Columbia, and another state, territory, 

possession or the District of Columbia, or the 

sale, use or manufacture of any product in 

more than one state, territory, possession or 

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 United 

States, including appliances that will be 

exported. (76 FR 78846) 

The commenter has provided no new 

information that would cause us to 

reverse our earlier decision. 

We believe that compliance with 

these final use conditions, including the 

specified UL standards and charge sizes, 

does not restrict or prohibit 

manufacturers from exporting to other 

markets. For most of the uses addressed 

in this rule, international standards 

regarding charge size are the same as 

those we are establishing in the use 

conditions. 

In the case of household refrigerators 

and freezers, the charge size 

requirement in our regulation is more 

stringent (57 g vs. 150 g) than the 

comparable international standard. Even 

in this case, however, the use condition 

would not restrict or prohibit the export 

of products to international markets. 

Rather, the manufacturers could export 

products so long as they complied with 

all of the use restrictions, including the 

charge size of no more than 57 g. 

3. Charge Size Limitations 

Comment: EIA stated that the propane 

charge limit size of 57 g for household 

refrigerators and freezers, set by the UL 

250 standards, should be increased to 

150 grams, matching the IEC 60335–2– 

24 standards. The commenter notes that 

this is consistent with European 

policies, and corresponds to an R–22 

charge size of 300–350 grams. 

Response: As discussed in our 

previous final rule that required a 

charge size of 57 g for R–441A and 

isobutane in household refrigerators and 

freezers, ‘‘EPA does not have sufficient 

information supported by safety testing 

data at this time from other commenters, 

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.’’ (76 FR 78845; December 

20, 2011). Further, our risk screen 

analysis of potential exposure at enduse for a household refrigerator/freezer 

indicates that in a worst-case release 

scenario, a charge as small as 104 g 

could result in consumer exposure 

above the STEL of 6,900 ppm for 

propane (ICF, 2014h). The commenter 

did not submit any technical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

information showing that a charge size 

of 150 g could be used in this end-use 

without posing a significantly greater 

risk than other available substitutes. 

Comment: UL believes that the 

lowered charge limits suggested by the 

Joint Task Group (JTG) and Standards 

Technical Panels (STP) from the 2011 

Flammable Refrigerant Stakeholder 

Forum are especially important for 

safety in room AC units, given that 

many room air conditioners are 

removed from wall or window sleeves 

annually and placed in storage, 

potentially increasing the risk of 

ignition in the presence of flammable 

refrigerants. 

Response: EPA recognizes that many 

room air conditioners are removed and 

placed in storage, for example when 

changing from warmer, summer 

temperatures to colder, winter 

temperatures. This fact was understood 

when the current charge limits set in UL 

484 were developed. While we 

recognize that an annual removal/

replacement cycle could increase the 

risk that refrigerants in such products 

might leak, we are not aware of, nor did 

we receive comments providing a safety 

assessment that would give an 

analytical basis on which to set charge 

size limits different than those 

proposed. EPA does not believe that the 

commenter fully justified the need or 

reason to change our proposed charge 

size limit, which are based on the 

existing UL 484 Standard (8th edition), 

to a charge size recommended by the 

JTG and STP, but not yet formally 

adopted. 

Comment: Enertech Global believes 

that the proposed charge limitations for 

propane found in Table 4, Maximum 

Design Charge Sizes for Packaged 

Terminal AC Units and Heat Pumps and 

Portable AC Units, are set too low and 

that it is not feasible to manufacture a 

unit with the specified cooling capacity 

using the small refrigerant charges 

listed. De’ Longhi, another manufacturer 

of AC equipment, stated that under 

relevant standards, there is a specific 

formula with higher charges allowed for 

portable AC units in IEC 60335–2–40 

Clause gg.8 and UL 484 Appendix F 

Clause F.1.7 (e.g., 300 g for a capacity 

of 12,000 BTU/hr instead of 160 g under 

the proposal). This commenter states 

that there are additional safety 

requirements specifically for portable 

AC units that allow for larger charge 

sizes. 

Response: EPA is establishing a use 

condition that sets charge size limits 

based on the need to ensure the risk to 

human health and the environment 

posed by propane is not significantly 

greater than that for other available 

substitutes, not on the feasibility of 

manufacturing specific products. The 

charge sizes in the proposed and final 

rule are based upon the UL 484 

Standard, 8th Edition. For portable AC 

units, the use condition establishing 

charge size relies on the provisions of 

UL 484 Appendix F Clauses F.1.7– 

F.1.14. Clause F.1.7 allows non-fixed, 

factory-sealed units, which for purposes 

of this rule we define solely as portable 

room AC units, to follow the formula: 

Mmax = 0.25 × A × LFL × 2.2 

Where, 

Mmax is the maximum charge size in kg, 

A is the room area in m2 and 

LFL is the lower flammability limit in kg/m3. 

The formula applies only to units 

with a refrigerant charge M that is less 

than or equal to twice the value of ‘‘m1,’’ 

which in turn is defined as four cubic 

meters multiplied by the LFL in kg/m3. 

Similar to the use-conditions set forth 

for other room air-conditioners, EPA is 

setting additional charge size limits 

according to the normal rated capacity 

of the unit. For portable room air 

conditioners, these maximum charge 

sizes in terms of capacity are in Table 

E (also described above in Section 

III.C.3, ‘‘Charge size’’). 

Comment: Daikin stated that the 

charge limits in UL Standard 484 are 

sufficient to protect the safety of all 

involved in the use and maintenance of 

relevant equipment, and that any further 

limitations would cause the commenter 

‘‘to revisit EPA’s justifications for any 

R–32 charge size limits.’’ The 

commenter agreed with the guidance to 

use linear interpolation to determine 

maximum charge size if the capacity lies 

between two values in EPA’s tables and 

believes that it would not be beneficial 

to add any more values to the tables. 

The commenter also states that a 

requirement for manufacturers to match 

charge size to design cooling capacity in 

flammable refrigerant systems would 

not significantly reduce fire risk. 

Response: EPA is finalizing charge 

size limits for room air conditioners as 

proposed, including a linear 

interpolation, as supported by this 

commenter. EPA notes in its response to 

other commenters that if and when 

charge sizes are updated, EPA remains 

open to revising the charge size use 

condition, whether in response to a 

petition or in an action initiated by EPA. 

EPA also believes that the use condition 

requiring manufacturers to meet charge 

size limits based on design cooling 

capacity may allow for more appropriate 

selection of unit sizes by the end-user 

than the use of room area, as well as 

greater enforceability. 

Comment: ComStar opposed the use 

of HFC–32 as a refrigerant in indoor 

applications because of its proposed 

high charges, as well as its toxicity, 

flammability, and GWP over 600. The 

commenter remarked that the use of R– 

32 in indoor applications is counter to 

‘‘the direction foreign governments, 

science, and OEMs are heading.’’ 

Response: Charge sizes are higher for 

HFC–32 under this standard than for 

propane or R–441A, the other 

refrigerants proposed for use in room air 

conditioners, because HFC–32 is far less 

flammable and has a much higher LFL. 

Based on the safety testing available in 

the record for this action, we believe 

that meeting a charge size that is no 

higher than that provided in the use 

conditions, HFC–32 does not pose 

significantly greater risk than other 

refrigerants in the room air condition 

end-use. This testing addressed 

flammability and toxicity risks. 

Moreover, HFC–32’s GWP of 675 is twothirds less than that of the most 

commonly used alternative for this type 

of equipment, R–410A (approximately 

2,090) and also significantly lower than 

that of HCFC–22 (1,810) and R–407C 

(approximately 1,770). The only 

currently acceptable alternatives in this 

end-use with lower GWP include 

ammonia absorption and the non-vapor 

compression technologies evaporative 

cooling and desiccant cooling. However, 

there are technical limits on the 

effective use of the non-vapor 

compression technologies in different 

climates, and ammonia has a higher 

toxicity that HFC–32 and the other 

alternatives. 

Regarding the direction of foreign 

governments, we note that EPA is 

setting requirements for appliances that 

enter interstate commerce in the United 

States. The European Union (EU) 

regulations addressing fluorinated 

substances allow use of refrigerants with 

a GWP of up to 750 for split residential 

AC, which includes the potential for 

HFC–32 to be used, while their 

regulations do not allow for refrigerants 

with a GWP higher than 150 in 

‘‘moveable room air-conditioning 

appliances,’’ which would exclude 

HFC–32 for that type of equipment. The 

EU regulations also include a 

phasedown schedule with a plateau and 

not a complete phaseout of HFCs. Thus, 

it does not appear that the EU F-gas 

regulations are moving in a direction 

away from allowing for HFC–32 for all 

end-uses. EPA based charge size limits 

on UL 484, which is the same approach 

used for other refrigerants which this 

commenter supports. 

The listing of HFC–32 acceptable 

subject to use conditions contained in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19481 

today’s action does not prevent OEMs 

from choosing a different refrigerant; it 

only provides an option for those who 

wish to pursue it. Further, EPA notes 

that the submission under SNAP for the 

use of HFC–32 came from an OEM that 

supports its use in United States as well 

as in other markets around the world. 

Comment: A.S. Trust & Holdings 

stated that they are surprised by the 

high charge amount for HFC–32, given 

its flammability. Further, the 

commenter provided charge information 

for R–443A and has noted that the LFL 

of R–441A is nearly identical to that of 

R–443A, such that the maximum 

allowable charge per room volume for a 

portable AC unit charge with R–441A 

could be determined via the similar 

chart for R–443A. 

Response: EPA set the charge size 

limits for HFC–32 using the same 

approach as used for the other 

refrigerants listed as acceptable subject 

to use conditions for self-contained 

room air conditioners. Charge sizes are 

higher for HFC–32 under the UL 484 

standard than for propane or R–441A, 

the other refrigerants proposed as 

acceptable for use in room air 

conditioners, because HFC–32 is far less 

flammable and has a much higher LFL. 

As discussed above, we have set the 

charge sizes for R–441A based upon the 

formulas in UL 484, including new 

charge size limits for portable AC units. 

Comment: Traulsen stated it agrees 

with the necessity of charge sizes, but 

requested that these limits be 

continually revisited and updated as 

applicable standards update safety 

information. 

Response: EPA notes that charge size 

limits within consensus-based standards 

are under constant revision and 

updating. In fact, several commenters 

supplied information about one or more 

revisions that are under consideration. If 

and when charge sizes are updated, EPA 

remains open to revising the charge size 

use condition, whether in response to a 

petition or in an action initiated by EPA. 

Comment: Panasonic Healthcare, a 

manufacturer of very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment, stated that the 

maximum charge size for propane in 

commercial refrigeration applications 

should be 150 g per circuit, matching 

the level described for ethane in 

commercial refrigerators and freezers, 

given that both are subject to the 10th 

edition of UL 471. 

Response: In a previous rulemaking 

(76 FR 78832; December 20, 2011), EPA 

found propane acceptable subject to use 

conditions, including a charge size limit 

of 150 g as specified in the 10th edition 

of UL 471, in stand-alone retail food 

refrigeration equipment. EPA did not 

receive a SNAP submission, and did not 

address in its proposed rulemaking, the 

use of propane in very low temperature 

refrigeration. 

Comment: Master-Bilt Products stated 

that the 150 g charge limit will allow for 

only 25% of its self-contained models to 

be used, as the BTU/hr capacity 

required for larger models cannot be 

achieved at the charge limit. The 

commenter also noted that it is unclear 

if multiple systems can use the 150 g 

charge in one larger model. 

Response: EPA recognizes that a 

charge size limit, regardless of what it 

is, could restrict the types of products 

that could be manufactured with these 

refrigerants. Manufacturers may choose 

to pursue these refrigerants for smaller 

BTU/hr capacity equipment and/or 

investigate technologies that could 

extend the use of these refrigerants to 

larger equipment while still meeting the 

150 g use condition. Consistent with 

previous actions, (76 FR 78832; 

December 20, 2011), the charge size 

limit applies to any sealed refrigeration 

system in a product, and some products 

could employ two or more separate 

sealed systems. EPA notes that if more 

than one sealed system is employed, 

each must meet the charge size limit 

(i.e., 150 g each). Having multiple sealed 

systems is of less concern than having 

a single system with the same combined 

charge since the probability of two 

sealed systems leaking simultaneously 

is lower than that of any one system 

leaking. See 76 FR at 78845. 

4. Color-Coded Hoses and Piping 

Comment: Daikin stated that HFC–32 

is unique in being a ‘‘lower 

flammability’’ refrigerant in the A2L 

category of the ASHRAE standard and 

in being subject to venting restrictions, 

as opposed to the other four substitutes 

that are ‘‘higher flammability’’ 

refrigerants in the A3 category of the 

ASHRAE standard and that are to be 

exempted from the venting restriction. 

In light of this, the commenter requested 

the use of ANSI Safety Yellow PMS 

#109 for HFC–32 and continued use of 

red PMS #185 for the other four 

substitutes. The commenter asserted 

that this change will avoid confusion 

and inadvertent venting of HFC–32 by 

installers and technicians. 

Response: Red coloring is understood 

to represent ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘stop,’’ or ‘‘danger,’’ 

and red coloring will provide 

technicians, consumers, and emergency 

responders with an unambiguous signal 

that a potential hazard is present. The 

latter two groups in particular are more 

likely to be familiar with the meaning of 

red coloring and to consider that color 

as a warning of danger. Yellow coloring 

could communicate the flammability 

risks less clearly than red, and use of 

two colors for different flammable 

refrigerants may both increase confusion 

and dilute the effectiveness of the 

coloring as a warning. EPA is finalizing 

a requirement to use red PMS #185 

coloring on hoses and tubing for 

equipment charged with HFC–32, R– 

441A, or propane in room air 

conditioners. This is the same color 

specified in AHRI Guideline N–2012, 

‘‘Assignment of Refrigerant Container 

Colors,’’ to identify containers of 

flammable refrigerant, such as propane, 

isobutane, and R–441A (AHRI, 2012). 

We believe the purpose of the coloring 

is to communicate the presence of a 

flammable refrigerant and that this 

purpose can be accomplished best by 

using the same coloring for HFC–32, 

propane, isobutane, and R–441A. EPA 

may consider whether there should be 

added markings to communicate when 

a refrigerant may or may not be vented 

in a future rule. 

Comment: Traulsen agreed that the 

colored hoses and piping may increase 

attention. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenter. 

Comment: Traulsen stated that the 

benefits of colored hoses and piping 

have not been proven relative to the cost 

of burden in any studies. Additionally, 

the commenter noted that if a product 

is serviced, there is a risk that the sleeve 

or cap may not be properly replaced 

unless EPA establishes a ‘‘safe practice’’ 

for servicers. 

Response: 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 might be and why the 

commenter thought they would be 

burdensome. EPA believes that the use 

of a sleeve or cap is consistent with the 

use condition as long as the 

requirements of the use condition (use 

of PMS #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 the 

sleeve on the serviced tube. 

The purpose of the colored hoses and 

tubing in this case is to inform service 

technicians, consumers and emergency 

responders that a flammable refrigerant 

is in use and to enable technicians to 

take additional precautions (e.g., 

reducing the use of sparking equipment) 

as appropriate to avert accidents when 

servicing the appliance. Color coding is 

particularly useful in the event that 

labels are no longer legible. The airconditioning and refrigeration industry 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

currently uses distinguishing colors to 

identify containers of different 

refrigerants. Likewise, distinguishing 

coloring is used elsewhere to indicate 

an unusual and potentially dangerous 

situation, such as the use of orangeinsulated wires in hybrid electric 

vehicles. 

The labeling requirement discussed in 

Section III.C.5 will complement the 

color-coding requirements 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 be removed or 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. 

5. Labeling 

Comment: Traulsen, ISRI, Daikin, and 

Hudson Technologies expressed support 

for the requirement for warning labels. 

Traulsen stated that because equipment 

is designed for multiple markets with 

different languages, the warning 

symbols and colors should be sufficient 

to allow for 1⁄8-inch lettering in the UL 

standards as opposed to the 1⁄4-inch 

proposed. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for the requirement for warning 

labels. Regarding the lettering size, EPA 

continues to believe that it would be 

difficult to read warning labels with the 

smaller 1⁄8-inch lettering stipulated by 

UL 250 and UL 471 and is finalizing the 

1⁄4-inch minimum height proposed, 

making it easier for technicians, 

consumers, retail store-owners, and 

emergency first responders to see the 

warning labels. The color markings 

would be inside the equipment where 

technicians could see them, but not 

consumers, retail store-owners, or 

emergency first responders. The 

warning symbol appears in fewer 

locations than the warning labels and 

provides less information, and thus is 

not a substitute for an easily readable set 

of warning statements. 

6. Unique Service Fittings 

Comment: The Alliance, Hudson 

Technologies, and ISRI, supported the 

use of unique service fittings for 

flammable refrigerants, in response to 

EPA’s proposal to recommend, but not 

require, such fittings. Hudson 

Technologies and ISRI stated that EPA 

should require unique service fittings. 

Traulsen agreed with the decision to not 

require service ports for self-contained 

equipment given the increased risk of 

system leaks. The commenter 

acknowledged that requiring a different 

service port for non-flammable 

refrigerants may establish a ‘‘safe 

practice,’’ but noted that it does not 

guarantee servicing companies will 

safely work on installed equipment. The 

Alliance stated that separate fittings for 

flammable refrigerants, in addition to 

color coded hosing and piping, will be 

an effective warning system to alert 

technicians to the presence of 

flammable substances. ISRI stated that 

these fittings will be useful for the 

future recovery of refrigerants by 

recyclers. 

Response: EPA agrees with 

commenters that service ports and 

unique fittings should not be required 

for self-contained equipment given the 

increased risk of system leaks. EPA also 

agrees that separate fittings for 

flammable refrigerants, in addition to 

color-coded hosing and piping and 

warning labels, can be an effective 

warning system to alert technicians to 

the presence of flammable substances, 

and that these fittings would be useful 

for the future recovery of refrigerants by 

recyclers. We disagree with the 

commenters that suggested we require 

unique fittings as a use condition. While 

there are some benefits to unique 

fittings, there are also concerns. As we 

recognized in our December 2011 rule, 

these concerns include that: Installation 

of fittings at the time of manufacture is 

not appropriate for certain appliance 

types; additional fittings present an 

increased leak risk; the ease of 

circumventing the requirement; and 

inconsistency with UL and international 

standards. In particular because the 

types of equipment in this rule are selfcontained and have a hermeticallysealed refrigerant circuit, installing 

fittings at manufacture would increase 

the risk of leakage and thus increase 

potential of a fire. Also, the UL 

standards that are incorporated by 

reference in the use conditions do not 

allow for equipment to be constructed 

with an access port (which would be 

where unique servicing fittings would 

be installed on the equipment). 

Therefore, this final rule continues to 

recommend, but not require, only if 

someone chooses to add an access port 

that they do so with separate servicing 

fittings for flammable refrigerants and 

that they only consider this where it is 

not prohibited by the required UL 

standard. 

F. Technician Training 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that technicians should be 

properly trained in handling flammable 

refrigerants, with Traulsen, NAFEM, 

ICOR, Hudson Technologies, and the 

Alliance commenting that training 

should be mandatory. Daikin, the 

Alliance, and DuPont expressed concern 

that technicians could be confused if 

EPA exempts certain refrigerants from 

venting requirements. Hoshizaki 

America commented that U.S. 

technicians are not properly trained in 

servicing appliances with flammable 

refrigerants, EPA does not explain the 

risk of explosion well, and that U.S. 

industry and consumers might not be 

aware that a unit contains flammable 

substances. ARA includes a list of 

questions about MSDSs that HVACR 

contractors can ask to improve safety 

with any refrigerant. 

Response: While EPA appreciates the 

concerns raised by the commenters, we 

have been exempting certain refrigerant 

substitutes from the venting prohibition 

since 1995. EPA already exempts certain 

refrigerants used from the venting 

prohibition including propane (in retail 

food refrigeration—stand-alone units 

only), and isobutane and R–441A (in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerator/freezers). 

Therefore, we do not believe that 

continuing with this established 

practice should cause confusion. 

The Agency understands that over the 

past 20 years there have been numerous 

developments in this industry and that 

often training programs are developed to 

familiarize technicians with these 

changes, including the introduction of 

new refrigerants. EPA is aware of such 

continuing education programs offered 

by vocational schools, unions, trade 

associations, equipment manufacturers 

and other entities that provide 

technicians information on a range of 

technology developments. Therefore, 

the Agency recommends that anyone 

servicing appliances with a flammable 

refrigerant receive appropriate training 

and follow industry best practices. 

Given the extent of technical knowledge 

available within the industry and the 

presence of voluntary training programs, 

we believe that it is not necessary for 

EPA to require training at this time in 

order for these newly listed refrigerants 

to be used as safely as other refrigerants 

currently available. 

EPA is not requiring training through 

today’s action. EPA notes that the 

Agency does require technician 

certification under Section 608 for 

technicians servicing, maintaining, or 

repairing appliances containing ozonedepleting refrigerants, but does not 

require any specific training and the 

certification program is limited in its 

scope, as it is not intended to replace 

vocational training. The goals of the 

Section 608 technician certification 

program reflect the need to reduce 

emissions during servicing, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19483 

maintenance, repair, and disposal. The 

complete requirements are included at 

40 CFR part 82, subpart F. Currently the 

regulations require anyone who 

services, maintains or repairs appliances 

containing an ozone-depleting 

refrigerant to be tested and certified. 

However, the Agency is undertaking a 

review of the Section 608 technician 

certification requirements—including 

whether to address flammable 

refrigerant substitutes—through a 

separate process. 

G. Venting Prohibition 

Comment: ISRI and a number of 

private citizens support EPA’s 

conclusion that venting hydrocarbons 

does not pose a threat to the 

environment. One commenter notes that 

other countries allow venting of 

hydrocarbons. In contrast, Hudson 

Technologies believes intentional 

venting to the atmosphere to be poor 

environmental policy and that the low 

GWP of hydrocarbons does not justify 

their exemption from venting 

prohibitions. 

Response: For the reasons discussed 

in section III.D, ‘‘Venting prohibition,’’ 

EPA agrees that venting, release, or 

disposal of the following hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes in the following 

end-uses and subject to the use 

conditions listed in this action does not 

pose a threat to the environment: (1) 

Isobutane and R–441A in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only); (2) propane in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers; (3) ethane in 

very low temperature refrigeration 

equipment and equipment for nonmechanical heat transfer; (4) R–441A, 

propane, and isobutane in vending 

machines; and (5) propane and R–441A 

in self-contained room air conditioners 

for residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps. EPA’s 

decision is based on consideration of 

multiple environmental characteristics 

and not just GWP. The comments do not 

give us sufficient reason to change our 

proposed conclusion that these 

refrigerant substitutes in these end-uses, 

subject to the required use conditions, 

do not pose a threat to the environment 

or to change this final rule so that they 

would not be exempt from the venting 

prohibition. 

In addition, EPA’s exemption from 

the CAA venting prohibition of these 

substances in these end-uses is 

consistent with how other countries, 

including Australia, Japan, and those in 

the European Union, regulate the 

venting of hydrocarbons. 

Comment: ARA and some private 

citizens asserted that HFC–32 has a 

significant impact on the environment, 

with a 100-year GWP of 675, raised 

concerns about its toxicity in the 

context of venting, and stated that it 

should not be exempt from the venting 

prohibition. 

Response: EPA did not propose to 

create an exemption to the venting 

prohibition for HFC–32 and is not 

establishing such an exemption in this 

final action. Therefore, the venting 

prohibition under Section 608 and the 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

82.154(a)(1) on knowingly venting, 

releasing, or disposing of refrigerant 

substitutes still applies to HFC–32 (and 

all other fluorinated gases), including in 

the end-use for which we are taking 

final action today under SNAP (i.e., 

room AC units). 

Comment: Traulsen, Hoshizaki 

America, NAFEM and DuPont 

expressed concern about the potential 

confusion from and safety consequences 

of EPA’s proposal to exempt certain 

substances from the venting prohibition. 

DuPont states that the differential 

treatment of refrigerants in such a 

manner could be misunderstood and 

could lead to unintended venting and 

environmental consequences from the 

release of ozone-depleting refrigerants. 

Response: EPA has evaluated the 

environmental and safety considerations 

of venting in: (1) Isobutane and R–441A 

in retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only); (2) propane in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

(3) ethane in very low temperature 

refrigeration equipment and equipment 

for non-mechanical heat transfer; (4) R– 

441A, propane, and isobutane in 

vending machines; and (5) propane and 

R–441A in self-contained room air 

conditioners for residential and light 

commercial air conditioning and heat 

pumps. After this review, EPA has 

determined the exempted releases do 

not pose a threat to the environment and 

thus that it is appropriate to exempt 

these refrigerant in these specific enduses and subject to these use conditions 

from the venting prohibition under 

Section 608(c) of the CAA. The 

comments do not provide sufficient 

grounds to compel us to change that 

conclusion. While EPA appreciates the 

concerns raised by the commenters, the 

agency has been exempting certain 

refrigerant substitutes from the venting 

prohibition since 1995. Therefore, we 

do not believe that continuing with this 

established practice should cause 

confusion. Also, as discussed above, the 

Agency is undertaking a review of the 

Section 608 technician certification 

requirements—including whether to 

address flammable refrigerants— 

through a separate process. 

Comment: CARB was concerned with 

the potential increase in ground-level 

ozone formation resulting from venting 

hydrocarbons, especially in nonattainment regions in California such as 

the South Coast Air Basin and the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin. CARB 

commented that their own modeling 

results agree with the conclusion of 

Scenario 4 of EPA’s air quality modeling 

results. 

Response: EPA has assessed the 

possible increase in ground-level ozone 

formation and believes it is appropriate 

to finalize the exemption from the 

venting prohibition as described in this 

action. We found that even if all the 

refrigerant in appliances in end-uses 

addressed in this rule were to be 

emitted, there would be a worst-case 

impact in the Los Angeles area of less 

than 0.15 ppb. Further, this estimate is 

likely to be higher than the impact 

resulting from actual emissions due to 

venting of the refrigerant substitutes 

listed in this rule in the specified enduses, because the estimate includes 

emissions from a more reactive 

refrigerant substitute that is not listed 

and not allowed to be vented under this 

rule. Because of the relatively low air 

quality impacts of these refrigerants if 

they are released to the atmosphere in 

limited amounts, as well as the factors 

discussed above, such as their low 

GWP, zero ODP, and lack of aquatic 

effects, EPA is concluding that these 

four hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

in the end-uses and subject to the use 

conditions do not pose a threat to the 

environment. For more detail, see 

Sections III.D, IV.A and VI.B. 

Comment: Two private citizens state 

that hydrocarbons are non-toxic and 

therefore venting of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants into the atmosphere would 

be an acceptable practice. 

Response: While the hydrocarbons 

being listed as acceptable in this rule are 

generally low in toxicity, they can lead 

to asphyxiation and other adverse 

health effects in high enough 

concentrations. Therefore, EPA 

considered exposure limits and 

potential exposure concentrations when 

assessing the safety and the 

acceptability of hydrocarbons under 

SNAP. This analysis found that the 

listed refrigerant substitutes, when used 

according to the required use 

conditions, would not exceed the 

relevant exposure limits (e.g., TLVs, 

STELs, or AEGLs), indicating that 

toxicity is not a significant risk for the 

specific refrigerant substitutes in the 

end-uses listed when used according to 

the required use conditions. See 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Sections III.D.4.ii and IV.C for more 

detail on EPA’s toxicity assessment of 

these refrigerants during servicing and 

disposal. Thus to the extent that this 

information is relevant to EPA’s 

determination under Section 608(c)(2), 

EPA does not believe that toxicity 

considerations preclude finalizing the 

exemption from the venting prohibition 

in this action. 

Comment: Traulsen, Hoshizaki 

America, NAFEM, ICOR and DuPont 

expressed concerns about the 

flammability of hydrocarbon refrigerants 

and the adequacy of safety measures 

during venting. DuPont stated that 

because of the low minimum ignition 

energy of hydrocarbon refrigerants, 

these refrigerants are easily ignited by 

static electricity. This commenter stated 

that venting in an uncontrolled 

environment could lead to unsafe 

conditions. NAFEM and ICOR 

mentioned that use of a class B fire 

extinguisher would not be sufficient to 

avoid an explosive condition. 

Response: Because of safety concerns, 

EPA has required numerous use 

conditions for appliances using 

flammable refrigerants as part of the 

SNAP listings. A discussion of the 

SNAP use conditions and EPA’s 

assessment of safety, which considered 

a full release of the charge within one 

minute, is available in the risk screens 

released with the proposal. When it 

comes to servicing, the charge size limit 

and the labeling requirements (e.g., 

visible warning statement and red 

coloring on the pipes, hoses and devices 

which contain refrigerant) will reduce 

the risk of a fire significantly. However, 

additional precautions are 

recommended, like ensuring proper 

ventilation and avoiding ignition 

sources during servicing. 

Concerning the risks of fire from static 

electricity, EPA notes this concern about 

the ignition of hydrocarbon refrigerants 

was discussed in the 2011 SNAP rule, 

in which propane was evaluated for use 

in stand-alone retail food refrigeration 

equipment and R–441A and isobutane 

were evaluated for use in household 

refrigerators and freezers, and were 

determined to be acceptable, subject to 

use conditions, under SNAP. In section 

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

SNAP rule, titled ‘‘What is the basis for 

EPA’s final action?’’ the Agency 

describes the evaluation and conclusion 

for approving those hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes for the specific 

end-uses under the use conditions. The 

2011 SNAP rule explains that, ‘‘when 

the concentration of a flammable 

refrigerant reaches or exceeds its LFL in 

the presence of an ignition source (e.g., 

a static electricity spark resulting from 

closing a door, use of a torch during 

servicing, or a short circuit in wiring 

that controls the motor of a compressor), 

an explosion or fire could occur’’ (76 FR 

at 78837). The 2011 SNAP rule 

continues by stating that, ‘‘To determine 

whether the three hydrocarbon 

refrigerants would present flammability 

concerns for service and manufacture 

personnel or for consumers, EPA 

reviewed the submitters’ detailed 

assessments of the probability of events 

that might create a fire, as well as 

engineering approaches to avoid 

sparking from the refrigeration 

equipment. EPA also conducted risk 

screens, available in the docket for [that] 

rulemaking, evaluating reasonable 

worst-case scenarios to model the effects 

of the sudden release of the refrigerants. 

The worst-case scenario analysis for 

each of the three hydrocarbons revealed 

that even if the unit’s full charge were 

emitted within one minute, the 

concentration would not reach the LFL 

for that hydrocarbon’’ (id. at 78839). 

EPA’s risk screens evaluating the 

environmental, toxicity and 

flammability risks of the refrigerant 

substitutes and end-uses in this action 

came to similar conclusions that the 

LFL would not be exceeded. Thus, 

although end-users should take 

precautions to reduce sparking from 

static electricity, this concern is not 

sufficient to cause EPA to prohibit use 

of these refrigerant substitutes or to 

decline to exempt these refrigerant 

substitutes in the specified end-uses 

when used according to the required use 

conditions. 

Use of a Class B fire extinguisher 

would not prevent a fire or explosive 

condition from occurring, as the 

commenter suggested; but if there is a 

fire, it is important to use a Class B 

extinguisher that is intended for use 

with hydrocarbon fires, rather than a 

Class A extinguisher intended for use 

with fires from wood, paper, or other 

ordinary combustibles. The statements 

in the ‘‘further information’’ column for 

each listing, including the 

recommendation for having a Class B 

dry powder type fire extinguisher 

available, are not intended to be a 

comprehensive set of all precautions 

needed, but rather basic guidelines or 

areas of consideration that users should 

consider as they develop their own 

safety programs. The Australian 

Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditions 

and Heating (AIRAH) provides useful 

guidance on safety precautions 

technicians can follow when servicing 

equipment containing flammable 

refrigerants. This document is included 

in the docket for this rule (AIRAH, 

2013). 

Comment: DuPont stated that the 

presence of lubricants during the 

venting process can potentially increase 

risk of ignition, and is not sure whether 

EPA fully evaluated these potential 

risks. 

Response: EPA has evaluated this 

potential risk and taken it into 

consideration in this action. Most 

lubricant will remain in the unit, along 

with a small amount of hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes. Typical 

compressor oils have flashpoints over 

130 °C, which is well above both 

ambient temperatures and the flashpoint 

of the hydrocarbon refrigerant 

substitutes in this rule. Thus, the 

presence of compressor oil should not 

have a significant effect on the 

flammability of the refrigerant-oil 

mixture. Our risk screens available in 

the docket for this rulemaking find that 

even if the full charge is lost in one 

minute, the LFL of the hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitute is not reached. 

Having said that, the Agency 

recommends technicians working with 

hydrocarbon refrigerants follow proper 

safety precautions, such as ensuring 

their workspace is well-ventilated and 

removing ignition sources. 

Observance of OSHA requirements 

could further limit concentrations and 

attendant flammability risks associated 

with those oils. For example, OSHA has 

a PEL for one class of compressor oil, 

mineral oil mist, of 5 mg/m3 of air, as 

well as rules for respiratory protection 

and personal protective equipment that 

apply. EPA additionally notes that the 

very small amount of dissolved 

compressor oil expected to be used in 

the small hydrocarbon charge size 

required by the use conditions will 

significantly mitigate the amount and 

the impact of any release into the 

environment of lubricants dissolved in 

the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

that may result from any venting, 

release or disposal that may occur under 

this final action. EPA also notes that 

many of the lubricants used with 

hydrocarbon refrigerants, such as alkyl 

benzene and polyalkylene glycol, are 

considered environmentally acceptable 

because they biodegrade easily, as noted 

in EPA’s document on environmentally 

acceptable lubricants, available in the 

docket. 

EPA received a similar comment on 

the rule exempting isobutane and R– 

441A, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers, 

and propane as a refrigerant substitute 

in retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only) (see 79 FR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19485 

29682). EPA considered such studies 

and the influence of lubricant on the 

LFLs of the hydrocarbon refrigerants in 

the specific end-uses in that rule when 

finding them acceptable subject to use 

conditions under the SNAP program 

(see December 20, 2011; 76 FR 78832, 

sections ‘‘D. Charge Size Limitation 

(Household Refrigeration)’’ and ‘‘E. 

Charge Size Limitation (Retail Food 

Refrigeration)’’ and discussions of 

Standards UL 250 and UL 471 regarding 

lubricant oil). We believe that same 

analysis and the same results are 

applicable here. 

Comment: A private citizen states that 

replacing old refrigerants with new ones 

decreases the risk of toxicity yet 

increases a risk of combustion. This 

commenter asked who would be 

responsible for fires due to use and 

disposal of these refrigerants (e.g., 

junkyard owner, appliance owner) and 

whether EPA and appliance 

manufacturers are responsible for 

ensuring that the end user is aware of 

risks from the usage and disposal of 

flammable refrigerants. 

Response: In this rule, EPA is 

exempting certain hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in specific applications from 

the venting prohibition, not making a 

determination of fault for individual 

incidents such as fires, which global 

experience indicates can be prevented 

with appropriate precautions. Thus, the 

commenter’s point about who would be 

responsible for fires is outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. With respect to the 

commenter’s concerns about the enduser’s awareness, in the Agency’s risk 

screen, we have assessed a worst-case 

scenario for consumer exposure 

(available in the docket for this 

rulemaking). Even in that worst-case 

scenario, the charge size for these 

approved applications is small enough 

that if the complete charge is lost within 

one minute in a confined space, the 

amount released does not reach the LFL, 

and therefore, a fire would not occur. 

Further, charges in the analyzed 

scenarios do not exceed the relevant 

exposure limits, and therefore, there 

should not be a significant toxicity risk. 

Since junkyards, scrap yards, and other 

facilities disposing of or recycling small 

appliances are already bound by the 

venting prohibition, they should already 

have a system in place to determine 

whether an appliance contains an ODS 

or substitute refrigerant. EPA believes 

that the required labeling of the product 

and prominent red marking on the 

refrigeration circuit will help these 

facilities to identify that the appliance 

contains a flammable refrigerant. Thus, 

these facilities likely have procedures in 

place to identify and appropriately 

handle flammable refrigerant 

substitutes, whether or not they are 

subject to an exemption from the 

venting prohibition. See also EPA’s 

guidance in the further information 

column in 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, 

Appendix R, concerning appropriate 

personal protective equipment (PPE), 

type of fire extinguisher to use, use of 

spark-proof tools, use of recovery 

equipment designed for flammable 

refrigerants, and releasing refrigerant to 

well-ventilated areas. 

Comment: Traulsen and NAFEM 

stated that EPA should reevaluate the 

suggestion that venting should be 

conducted outside of a building because 

of local codes, lease terms, or logistical 

concerns that may make outdoor 

venting disruptive or even impossible. 

One of these commenters, Traulsen, also 

is concerned that EPA has not yet 

outlined what a network of properly 

trained service professionals to handle 

venting practices safely would consist 

of, yet assumes that one will exist. 

Response: EPA is not requiring that 

flammable refrigerant substitutes from 

appliances be vented, nor that they be 

vented outside. We recognize that 

outdoor venting may not always be 

feasible and that such activity may be 

restricted by fire codes. Venting 

outdoors is likely to allow sufficient 

ventilation to reduce concentrations and 

mitigate flammability risks, but 

sufficient ventilation could also be 

provided by engineered ventilation 

systems. Some manufacturers and endusers may instead choose to recover 

flammable refrigerants rather than 

venting. While the use conditions under 

SNAP finalized by this action, in 

particular charge size, will minimize 

safety risk, other precautions are 

recommended, like ensuring proper 

ventilation and avoiding ignition 

sources during servicing. These would 

also be appropriate guidelines, whether 

venting or recovering the refrigerant. 

AIRAH provides useful guidance on 

safety precautions technicians can 

follow when servicing equipment with 

flammable refrigerants. One of those 

practices is to connect a hose to the 

appliance to allow for venting the 

refrigerant outside. This document is 

included in the docket for this rule. We 

note that at least two organizations, 

RSES and the ESCO Institute, already 

offer training for handling of flammable 

refrigerants, which is the first step to 

building a network of properly trained 

technicians. Similarly, equipment 

manufacturers and end-users that have 

sent EPA SNAP submissions for 

flammable refrigerants have indicated 

that there is technician training for their 

own staff and for contractors 

responsible for servicing appliances. 

Also, the Agency intends to update the 

test bank for technician certification 

under Section 608 of the CAA as we 

have done previously, and will consider 

including additional questions on 

flammable refrigerants. By adding such 

questions to the test bank, EPA would 

supplement but would not replace 

technician training programs currently 

provided by non-government entities. 

We will seek additional information and 

guidance on how best to incorporate 

this content through a separate process 

outside of this final rule. 

Comment: Traulsen has not found a 

solution regarding EPA’s question about 

an industry standard for hydrocarbon 

recovery units and their availability in 

the U.S. market. No other commenters 

provided information on such an 

industry standard. 

Response: EPA is not aware of an 

industry standard for hydrocarbon 

recovery equipment, but encourages 

industry to develop one. However, the 

agency is aware of the existence of some 

hydrocarbon recovery devices. One of 

those recovery devices uses activated 

carbon to assist in the safe removal of 

hydrocarbons from appliances. A 

canister containing activated carbon is 

pulled to a 25 in.Hg vacuum. The 

canister is then filled with nitrogen up 

to 10 psi and pulled to a vacuum again 

to bring oxygen levels below 0.1% in 

the cylinder, thereby preventing 

conditions that might allow ignition. 

The canister is then attached to the 

appliance containing a hydrocarbon 

refrigerant. The hydrocarbon refrigerant 

is pulled from the appliance into the 

canister and the canister is then sealed 

off. This can be done with no pump or 

other electrical equipment near the 

equipment containing the flammable 

refrigerant. The carbon within the 

canister bonds with the hydrocarbon, 

eliminating its ability to oxidize or burn. 

Once the process is complete, the 

hydrocarbon can be recovered from the 

canister and appropriately managed for 

reuse or disposal. Given the lack of 

additional information on standards for 

recovery equipment for hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes, and our finding 

that release of the specific refrigerants in 

the specific end-uses identified in this 

rule do not pose a threat to the 

environment, we continue to believe 

there is reason for allowing venting of 

the hydrocarbon refrigerant substitutes 

in the specified end-uses as an 

alternative to recovery. 

Comment: ISRI seeks clarification on 

how 40 CFR 82.156(f) applies to the 

recycling of appliances with exempt 

substitutes that may be vented pursuant 

to 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: Under 40 CFR 82.156(f), 

the person who takes the final step in 

the disposal process (including but not 

limited to scrap recyclers and landfill 

operators) of a small appliance, room 

AC, MVACs, or MVAC-like appliances 

must either recover any remaining 

refrigerant in accordance with the 

regulations or verify that refrigerant has 

been evacuated previously. Since the 

current definition of refrigerant 

excludes non-ozone-depleting 

refrigerant substitutes, these 

recordkeeping requirements do not 

presently apply to the hydrocarbon 

refrigerant substitutes in the specified 

end-uses that are the subject of this 

action. The only requirement under 40 

CFR part 82 Subpart F that would have 

applied is the venting prohibition. 

However, since EPA is exempting those 

hydrocarbons for the specific uses from 

the venting prohibition in this final rule, 

that prohibition would no longer apply. 

Moreover, as this action does not change 

the applicability of other environmental 

regulations, other applicable 

environmental regulations would 

continue to apply (e.g., under RCRA). 

Comment: ISRI notes that in the last 

rule exempting isobutane and R–441A 

as refrigerant substitutes in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers, and propane 

as a refrigerant substitute in retail food 

refrigerators and freezers (stand-alone 

units only) (see 79 FR 29682), EPA 

stated that certain hydrocarbons could 

be characterized as hazardous waste due 

to their flammability (as defined under 

the RCRA regulations; see 40 CFR 

261.21). The commenter notes that the 

agency also stated that incidental 

releases of these hydrocarbons ‘‘would 

not be subject to RCRA requirements for 

the disposal of hazardous waste as the 

release would occur incidentally during 

the maintenance, service and repair of 

the equipment, and would not 

constitute disposal of the refrigerant 

charge as solid waste, per se,’’ (79 FR 

29687). ISRI seeks clarity on whether 

full venting is allowed if flammable 

refrigerants have been exempted from 

the venting prohibition at 40 CFR 

82.154(a). The commenter also seeks 

clarity on whether hydrocarbons would 

be considered hazardous waste under 

RCRA. The commenter suggests that 

EPA could create a new exclusion from 

hazardous waste at 40 CFR 261.4(b) for 

an acceptable ignitable refrigerant 

substitute, or determine that an 

acceptable ignitable refrigerant is 

equivalent to household waste under 40 

CFR 261.4(b)(1). 

Response: In this rule, EPA is 

exempting from the venting prohibition 

under CAA Section 608(c) certain 

hydrocarbons in certain end-uses listed 

as acceptable subject to use conditions 

under SNAP. Specifically, EPA is 

exempting from the venting prohibition 

the following refrigerant substitutes in 

the following uses: (1) Isobutane and R– 

441A in retail food refrigerators and 

freezers (stand-alone units only); (2) 

propane in household refrigerators, 

freezers, and combination refrigerators 

and freezers; (3) ethane in very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment 

and equipment for non-mechanical heat 

transfer; (4) R–441A, propane, and 

isobutane in vending machines; and (5) 

propane and R–441A in self-contained 

room air conditioners for residential and 

light commercial air conditioning and 

heat pumps. 

The commenter’s request to modify 

the hazardous waste regulations is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, 

since it focuses on Sections 608 and 612 

of the CAA. However, as discussed in 

the final rule exempting from the 

venting prohibition isobutane and R– 

441A, as refrigerant substitutes in 

household refrigerators, freezers, and 

combination refrigerators and freezers; 

and propane, as a refrigerant substitute 

in retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only); incidental 

releases that occur during the 

maintenance, service, and repair of 

appliances would not be subject to 

RCRA requirements for the disposal of 

hazardous waste because this would not 

constitute disposal of the refrigerant 

charge as a solid waste, per se (see 79 

FR 29687). 

The commenter raises questions about 

how the hazardous waste requirements 

under RCRA apply at disposal (or in the 

case of scrap metal recycling, 

disassembly) of an appliance. Under the 

RCRA requirements at 40 CFR part 261, 

it does appear that certain refrigerants, 

like hydrocarbons, could potentially be 

subject to regulation as hazardous 

wastes if they exhibit the ignitability 

characteristic. 

In the case of household appliances, 

repair and disposal of hydrocarbons 

would not be considered hazardous 

waste management because the 

appliance is exempt from the hazardous 

waste regulations under the household 

hazardous waste exemption at 40 CFR 

261.4(b)(1) (although States may have 

more stringent regulations). The 

refrigerant could therefore generally be 

vented without triggering RCRA 

hazardous waste requirements. 

On the other hand, for commercial 

and industrial appliances that are not 

generated by households as defined in 

40 CFR 261.4(b)(1), ignitable refrigerants 

would be subject to regulation as 

hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.21) 

subject to a limited exception if the 

ignitable refrigerant is to be recycled. 

Ignitable refrigerant that has been used 

and has become contaminated through 

use would fit the definition of a spent 

material under RCRA (40 CFR 

261.1(c)(1)) if it must be reclaimed prior 

to its reuse. Spent materials that are 

reclaimed are solid wastes per Section 

261.2(c). However, if the hydrocarbon 

refrigerant is recovered for direct reuse 

(i.e., no reclamation), it would not be 

classified as a solid or a hazardous 

waste (40 CFR 261.2(e)). EPA believes 

that recycling of these materials would 

require cleaning before they are reused. 

H. Cost and Economic Impacts 

1. Equipment Redesign 

Comment: NAFEM and Hoshizaki 

America stated that refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers would incur 

capital costs in switching to flammable 

refrigerants because they would need to 

redesign equipment and facilities to 

eliminate ignition sources to reduce the 

risk of fire. Hoshizaki America stated 

that manufacturers would have to go 

through considerable and costly staff 

training to understand the risks of 

explosion for the proposed list of 

substitutes. Master-Bilt Products stated 

that the large expenses for upgrading 

factories and additional testing to meet 

different standards will slow innovation 

for their business as well as other small 

businesses. 

Response: EPA agrees that 

manufacturers choosing to use one of 

the refrigerants listed in this rule may 

need to make capital investments in 

their facilities, including the redesign of 

equipment to handle flammable 

refrigerants, and may need to invest in 

training their staff to handle flammable 

refrigerants safely. These investments 

would be needed for safe use of these 

refrigerants and would be needed 

irrespective of use conditions 

established by EPA in listing these 

refrigerants as acceptable subject to use 

conditions. Therefore manufacturers 

may decide, based on their own 

business considerations, whether to 

pursue hydrocarbon refrigerants. This 

rule does not restrict nonflammable 

substitutes currently in use nor does it 

require manufacturers to use any of the 

flammable substitute refrigerants listed 

through this action. 

Comment: Master-Bilt commented 

that if multiple systems using the 150 g 

charge can be used in larger models, 

propane could potentially be used in 

some larger equipment, but the cost 

would go up approximately 25–50% 

and the systems would be more 

complex. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19487 

Response: The 150 g limit applies to 

each refrigerant circuit and multiple 

circuits could be used in the same piece 

of equipment, as discussed above under 

section VI.E.3. We agree with the 

commenter that the cost for models that 

have multiple circuits could be higher 

and that the systems would be more 

complex. We are not requiring 

manufacturers to use propane or any of 

the substitute refrigerants listed in this 

action. 

2. Market Options 

Comment: Traulsen believes this rule 

will give the industry more flexibility to 

explore market options. EIA believes the 

rule will allow U.S. businesses to sell 

international products domestically and 

encourage foreign businesses to expand 

their manufacturing operations and 

distribution in the United States. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenters. Whenever the Agency 

expands the list of acceptable 

substitutes it provides industry, 

including manufacturers, with more 

flexibility and options. 

3. Recycling 

Comment: ISRI is concerned that EPA 

may not have adequately considered the 

impacts of the proposed rule on the 

recycling industry. The commenter 

stated that, for example, the recycling 

industry (NAICS 423930) was not even 

identified as potentially affected in 

Table 1 of the proposed rule. 

Response: EPA has added the 

recycling industry in Table 1 in this 

final rule. Further, EPA has performed 

research to consider impacts of the rule 

on the recycling industry more fully 

(ICF, 2015b). We investigated the 

impacts of use of flammable refrigerants 

in waste streams of other countries 

using these refrigerants. This analysis 

found that it is not anticipated that the 

recycling industry will experience 

additional risk if appliances containing 

hydrocarbon refrigerants are sent to 

recycling facilities prior to the 

refrigerant being properly vented or 

evacuated. This analysis suggested that 

recycling facilities should vent or 

otherwise remove the refrigerant 

(consistent with other requirements like 

RCRA) before any mechanical 

processing of the appliance (e.g., 

shredders, choppers, magnets), due to 

the potential presence of ignition 

sources. Further, based upon experience 

with flammable refrigerants in Europe, 

Australia, and Japan, there are best 

practices for handling flammable 

refrigerants at disposal, such as those 

provided by AIRAH (2013). 

I. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Comment: Traulsen stated that EPA’s 

rule adding to the list of acceptable 

SNAP substitutes may not be affected by 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), but 

any requirement related to the removal 

of a previously approved substance 

would violate the RFA. Traulsen 

expressed concern about the potential 

future impacts on small businesses if 

flammable refrigerants, including the 

proposed refrigerants, become the only 

refrigerant options available, combined 

with uncertainties such as building 

disparities and placement and 

installation of equipment. 

Response: EPA agrees with the 

commenter that this final rule, which 

adds to the list of acceptable substitutes, 

is consistent with requirements of the 

RFA. The commenter raises a concern 

that actions that remove substitutes 

from the list of acceptable substitutes 

could have implications for the RFA. 

EPA will address the RFA in any action 

proposing and finalizing a decision to 

remove one or more substitutes from the 

lists of acceptable substitutes. 

Comment: Traulsen commented that 

although this rule adding these 

substitutes may not be affected by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) or Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), subsequent SNAP rules may. 

Response: EPA will address how 

these Acts apply to any subsequent 

action in that separate action. 

Comment: Traulsen stated that it 

supports the Agency’s adoption of wellknown and developed safety standards 

like those issued by UL and other 

organizations under the application of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA). 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support for this aspect of the rule. 

Comment: Traulsen expressed interest 

in EPA’s statement regarding the 

position of deferring to agencies with 

jurisdiction in other areas, with regards 

to Executive Order (EO) 13132: 

Federalism and 13175: Tribal 

Governments. Specifically, the 

commenter is interested in how those 

orders apply to the installation of 

equipment in localities where the 

substitutes are regulated under different 

authorities, including VOC and building 

occupancy codes. 

Response: This regulation does not 

impose direct requirements on state, 

local, or tribal governments, nor does it 

preempt state, local, or tribal law, the 

major concerns of EO 13132 and 13175. 

When using the refrigerants in this final 

rule, technicians, end users, and 

manufacturers would need to comply 

with the requirements in this final rule 

and must also comply with state, local, 

or tribal laws. For example, if local 

occupancy codes do not allow 

intentional release of hydrocarbons on 

the premises, or if a state regulation 

limits VOC releases, a technician may 

not be able to release hydrocarbon 

refrigerants to the atmosphere, even if 

they would be permitted to do so by this 

rule. 

J. Relationship With Other Rules 

Comment: NAFEM, Master-Bilt 

Products, and private citizens raised 

concerns about the relationship between 

this rule and the proposed rule, 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Change of Listing Status for Certain 

Substitutes under the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program (August 6, 

2014, 79 FR 46126). Among the 

concerns expressed are that available 

alternatives to comply with the other 

proposed rule are not commercially 

available drop-in replacements, thus 

requiring redesign of equipment, 

additional testing, training, and cost; the 

compliance date proposed in the other 

rule is too short; the potential for 

detrimental effects of alternative 

refrigerants on energy efficiency 

demanded by Department of Energy 

(DOE) standards; and the charge size 

restrictions in this rule will mean many 

types of equipment will not be able to 

use the refrigerants listed in this rule to 

comply with the Change of Listing 

Status proposed rule. 

Response: The concerns raised by 

these commenters concern the basis for 

certain decisions in the Change of 

Listing Status proposed rule, including 

whether alternatives other than those 

we propose to list as unacceptable are 

available and what is the appropriate 

date on which a substitute is no longer 

acceptable for use. EPA will address 

these issues concerning the Change of 

Listing Status proposed rule when we 

take final action on that proposal. As 

discussed above in section VI.B.2, 

‘‘Energy efficiency and indirect climate 

impacts,’’ available information 

supports reduced energy use with the 

refrigerants being listed in this final 

rule. We note that we are continually 

reviewing and listing additional 

alternatives for the various end-uses at 

issue. 

Comment: NAFEM stated that their 

industry has been inundated with 

various DOE energy standards 

rulemakings, as well as this rule and the 

proposed rule concerning changing the 

listing status of some alternatives. The 

commenter mentioned the timing and 

cumulative impacts of other government 

actions and requested a 60-day 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

extension to the comment period for 

EPA’s proposal to change the listing 

status of certain alternatives. 

Response: This comment concerns the 

comment period on a separate rule. EPA 

responded to this request to extend the 

public comment period on the proposal 

to change the listing status of certain 

alternatives by granting a 14-day 

extension. For further information, 

please see EPA Docket # EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0198, ‘‘Protection of 

Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing 

Status for Certain Substitutes under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

Program.’’ 

K. Timing of Final Rule 

Comment: Daikin, EIA, and some 

private citizens requested EPA to move 

forward with the final rule as quickly as 

possible, while NAFEM requested that 

EPA delay both this final rule and the 

final rule to change the listing status of 

certain alternatives. Commenters in 

favor of finalizing the rule as quickly as 

possible cite environmental reasons and 

point out that hydrocarbons are already 

widely in use around the world. 

Commenters in favor of delay note the 

separate proposal concerning the change 

of status of certain substitutes and 

requested that EPA extend the 

compliance deadline to ensure adequate 

training. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

support from those commenters 

requesting rapid promulgation of this 

rule. We agree that finalizing this rule 

promptly allows for earlier use of the 

lower GWP refrigerants in this rule and 

allows earlier and greater climate 

benefits than delaying issuance of the 

rule. Training would be more useful for 

technicians and manufacturer personnel 

if it addresses the requirements of this 

final rule as set forth in the use 

conditions. We disagree with the 

commenter who suggests that this rule 

should not be finalized, and thus the 

substitutes should not be acceptable for 

use, until there is ‘‘adequate training.’’ 

Some companies have already begun 

training and are prepared to use these 

refrigerants now. As we discussed in 

section VI.F, ‘‘Technician training’’ 

above, we are not including a 

requirement for technician training as a 

use condition. Further, we believe that 

issuing this final rule with a delayed 

date of compliance would increase risk 

to manufacturers and the public. A 

number of submitters have provided 

EPA with the required 90-day notice 

prior to introducing these substitutes 

into interstate commerce; therefore, 

delaying the compliance date would not 

delay introduction of these substitutes, 

but it would allow some equipment to 

be manufactured without meeting the 

use conditions of this rule, which we 

believe are necessary to mitigate risk 

sufficiently for these substitutes to be 

acceptable. If the commenter is instead 

referring to delaying the date of 

compliance of the Change of Listing 

Status Rule, we will address that 

compliance date when we take final 

action on that rule. 

L. Other Comments 

1. Propylene 

Comment: A.S Trust & Holdings 

commented that propylene, a 

component of the refrigerant R–443A, is 

not toxic and included an industry 

standard reference to prove this. This 

commenter also stated that they thought 

EPA was confusing propylene with 

propylene glycol. 

Response: EPA has not proposed 

action on propylene or on R–443A in 

this rule and is not taking action on 

propylene or R–443A at this time. We 

included propylene in our analysis of 

air quality effects because EPA has 

received a submission for R–443A, a 

blend containing propylene, for use in 

residential air conditioners, including 

portable AC units. In order to consider 

the potential ground-level ozone 

impacts of all refrigerants under review 

for the end-uses in this rule, we 

analyzed the potential impacts of 

propylene along with other hydrocarbon 

refrigerants. However, our review has 

not progressed to include review of R– 

443A’s toxicity. 

We note that in our reviews of 

toxicity, we do not characterize 

substances as ‘‘toxic’’ or ‘‘non-toxic.’’ 

Rather, EPA considers exposure limits 

and potential exposure concentrations 

when assessing the toxicity and 

determining whether a substitute should 

be listed as acceptable and, if so, 

whether a use condition is necessary. 

For example, for propane, EPA 

evaluated whether long-term exposure 

would exceed a TLV of 1,000 ppm and 

whether short-term exposure would 

exceed an AEGL of 6,900 ppm. If EPA 

uses the same approach for other 

refrigerants mentioned by the 

commenter, we might use industry 

exposure limits that are more difficult to 

achieve (e.g., TLV of 500 ppm for 

propylene). 

2. R–443A 

Comment: A.S Trust & Holdings 

commented on certain assumptions that 

EPA mentioned as its likely approach to 

assessing R–443A, including worst-case 

assumptions. This commenter referred 

EPA to his own risk assessment 

provided to the Agency, as well as a 

sizing guide. 

Response: EPA has consistently 

evaluated alternatives through a risk 

screen process that begins with a highly 

conservative worst-case scenario, such 

as where the entire refrigerant charge of 

a window AC unit leaks out rapidly in 

a specific room size. If a substitute’s 

concentrations remain below the LFL 

and relevant toxicity limits in the worstcase scenario with highly conservative 

assumptions, we do no further 

assessment. If the substitute’s 

concentrations exceed the LFL or a 

relevant toxicity limit in the worst-case 

scenario, then we consider more typical 

scenarios based on less conservative 

assumptions. EPA will consider the 

submitter’s risk assessment and 

recommended charge sizes as part of our 

ongoing review of R–443A. EPA has not 

proposed action on R–443A in this rule 

and is not taking action on R–443A at 

this time. 

3. Reductions of HFC Emissions Under 

Other Sections of CAA Title VI 

Comment: CARB urges EPA to 

continue to use its existing authority 

under the CAA Sections 608 and 609 to 

reduce HFC emissions from all sources, 

including stationary refrigeration and 

AC, insulating foam, consumer product 

aerosol propellants, and MVAC. 

Response: The comment’s suggestions 

go beyond the scope of this rule. 

Separate from this rulemaking action, 

EPA is considering input from various 

stakeholders about possible actions 

under Section 608 and other parts of the 

Act to address impacts of HFCs and 

would welcome any comments the 

commenter would care to provide on 

this subject. 

4. Refrigerants for Retrofit 

Comment: Hudson Technologies 

suggested that the determination that a 

substitute is acceptable for use as a 

retrofit refrigerant for existing 

equipment should be more highly 

scrutinized by EPA, even when dealing 

with non-flammable substitutes. This 

commenter recommends that EPA limit 

listings for acceptable refrigerants to use 

in new equipment unless the substitute 

has a lower GWP and the use of the 

substitute in existing equipment will 

not result in loss of efficiency. 

Response: This comment goes beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. This final 

rule establishes use conditions limiting 

the five refrigerants listed to use in new 

equipment designed for that refrigerant. 

EPA evaluates each submission on its 

merits and where a submitter requests 

that a substitute be listed as acceptable 

for use in retrofit equipment, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19489 

consider such requests based on the 

same criteria that we consider in 

reviewing all SNAP submissions. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

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 and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection activities 

contained in the existing regulations 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0226. This final rule contains no 

new requirements for reporting or 

recordkeeping. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. 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, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

Today’s action allows equipment 

manufacturers the additional options of 

using ethane, HFC–32, isobutane, 

propane, and R–441A in the specified 

end-uses but does not mandate such 

use. Because refrigeration and AC 

equipment for these refrigerants are not 

manufactured yet in the U.S. for the 

end-uses (with the exception of limited 

test-marketing), no change in business 

practice is required to meet the use 

conditions, resulting in no adverse 

impact compared to the absence of this 

rule. Provisions that allow venting of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in the uses 

addressed by this rule reduce regulatory 

burden. We have therefore concluded 

that this action will relieve regulatory 

burden for all small entities that choose 

to use one of the newly listed 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. 

The use conditions of this rule apply 

to manufacturers of household and 

commercial refrigerators and freezers, 

vending machines, non-mechanical heat 

transfer equipment, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment for 

laboratories and room air conditioners 

that choose to use these refrigerants. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in E.O. 13175. 

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. 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 subject to E.O. 

13045 because it is not economically 

significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and 

because the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action do 

not present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in Section 

IV.C of the preamble and in the risk 

screens in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Available information indicates that 

these new systems may be more energy 

efficient than currently available 

systems in some climates. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This action includes technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use 

standards from UL in the use conditions 

for the five listed substitutes. EPA is 

incorporating by reference portions of 

current editions of the UL Standards 

250, ‘‘Household Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ (10th Edition, August 25, 

2000), 471, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerators 

and Freezers’’ (10th Edition, November 

24, 2010), 541 ‘‘Refrigerated Vending 

Machines’’ (7th Edition, December 30, 

2011), and 484 ‘‘Room Air 

Conditioners’’ (8th Edition, August 3, 

2012), which include requirements for 

safe use of flammable refrigerants. This 

final rule ensures that these new 

substitutes for household and 

commercial refrigerators and freezers, 

vending machines, non-mechanical heat 

transfer equipment, very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment, 

and room air conditioners do not 

present significantly greater risk to 

human health or the environment than 

other available substitutes. These 

standards may be purchased by mail at: 

COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; 

Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@

comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1–888– 

853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other 

countries dial +1–415–352–2168); 

Internet address: http://

ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/ or 

www.comm-2000.com. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because this action 

provides human health and 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This final rule provides refrigerant 

substitutes that have no ODP and lower 

GWP than other substitutes currently 

listed as acceptable. The reduction in 

ODS and GHG emissions assists in 

restoring the stratospheric ozone layer 

and provides climate benefits. The 

results of this evaluation are contained 

in sections III. and IV. of the preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

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

VIII. References 

This preamble references the 

following documents, which are also in 

the Air Docket at the address listed in 

Section I.B.1. Unless specified 

otherwise, all documents are available 

electronically through the Federal 

Docket Management System, Docket # 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0748. 

AHRI, 2012. AHRI Guideline N–2012: 

Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors. 

2012. 

AIRAH, 2013. Flammable Refrigerants— 

Safety Guide. Australian Institute of 

Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating. 

2013. 

ASHRAE, 2010. American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society 

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

34–2010 (supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 34–2007): Designation and Safety 

Classification of Refrigerants. 2010. 

A.S. Trust & Holdings, 2012. Significant 

New Alternatives Policy Program Submission 

to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency for R–441A in retail food 

refrigeration. 

A/S Vestfrost, 2012. Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission to 

the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for isobutane in retail food 

refrigeration. 

Climate Action Plan, 2013. The President’s 

Climate Action Plan. Executive Office of the 

President. June, 2013. Available online at 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

Chinese Household Electrical Appliance 

Association (CHEAA), 2013. Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program Submission to 

the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for Propane (R–290) in residential 

and light commercial air conditioning and 

dehumidifiers. 

Daikin, 2011. Significant New Alternatives 

Policy Program Submission to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency for 

HFC–32 in residential and light commercial 

air conditioning. 

EPA, 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models 

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 

PM2.5, and Regional Haze. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 

2007. 

EPA, 2015. Derivation of Charge Limits for 

Room Air Conditioners. Staff memo to Air 

Docket. 2015. 

ICF, 2014a. Assessment of the Potential 

Impact of Hydrocarbon Refrigerants on 

Ground-Level Ozone Concentrations. 

ICF, 2014b. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12, HCFC–22 and R–502 in Retail Food 

Refrigeration; Substitute: Isobutane (R–600a) 

ICF, 2014c. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12, HCFC–22 and R–502 in Retail Food 

Refrigeration; Substitute: R–441A 

ICF, 2014d. Risk Screen on Substitute for 

CFC–12, CFC–13, R–13B1, and R–503 in Very 

Low Temperature Refrigeration and NonMechanical Heat Transfer; Substitute: Ethane 

(R–170) 

ICF, 2014e. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and R–502 in Vending Machines; 

Substitute: R–441A 

ICF, 2014f. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and R–502 in Vending Machines; 

Substitute: Isobutane (R–600a) 

ICF, 2014g. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and R–502 in Vending Machines; 

Substitute: Propane (R–290) 

ICF, 2014h. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

CFC–12 and HCFC–22 in Household 

Refrigerators and Household Freezers.; 

Substitute: Propane (R–290). 

ICF, 2014i. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC–22 in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps; Substitute: Propane (R–290) 

ICF, 2014j. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC–22 in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps; Substitute: HFC–32 

(Difluoromethane) 

ICF, 2014k. Risk Screen on Substitutes for 

HCFC–22 in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat 

Pumps; Substitute: R–441A 

ICF, 2015a. Potential impacts of 

trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) generated from 

HFC–32 in room air conditioners. January, 

2015. 

ICF, 2015b. Potential Impacts of 

Hydrocarbon Refrigerants during Recycling 

and Disposal of Appliances. January, 2015. 

IEC 60225–2–40. Safety of Household and 

Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2–40: 

Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat 

Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. 

5th Edition. December, 2013. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: 

The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This 

document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/

publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/

contents.html 

Montzka, S.A., 2012. HFCs in the 

Atmosphere: Concentrations, Emissions and 

Impacts, ASHRAE/NIST Conference 2012. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), 2013. NOAA 

emissions data on HFCs. Available online at 

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/hfcs/. 

Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL), 1997. J. 

Sand, S. Fischer, and V. Baxter, ‘‘Energy and 

Global Warming Impacts of HFC Refrigerants 

and Emerging Technologies,’’ 1997, Oak 

Ridge National Lab. 

Ravishankara et al., 1994. Ravishankara, 

A.R., A.A. Turnipseed, N.R. Jensen, S. 

Barone, M. Mills, C. J. Howard, and S. 

Solomon. Do hydrofluorocarbons destroy 

stratospheric ozone? Science 263: 71–75. 

1994. 

Sheldon, 1989. Sheldon, L.S., et al. 1989. 

‘‘An Investigation of Infiltration and Indoor 

Air Quality.’’ New York State Energy 

Research & Development Authority, Report 

90–11. As cited in ICF, 2014h, Risk screen for 

propane in household refrigerators and 

freezers. 

UL 250. Household Refrigerators and 

Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SA: 

Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers 

Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the 

Refrigerating System. August 2000. 

UL 471. Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers. 10th edition. Supplement SB: 

Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers 

Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the 

Refrigerating System. November 2010. 

UL 484. Room Air Conditioners. 8th 

edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for 

Refrigerated Venders Employing a 

Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating 

System. August 2012. 

UL 541. Refrigerated Vending Machines. 

7th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements 

for Room Air Conditioners Employing a 

Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating 

System. December 2011. 

UL 60335–2–40. Safety of Household and 

Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2–40: 

Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat 

Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. 

First Edition. November, 2012. 

World Meteorological Organization 

(WMO), 2010. Scientific Assessment of 

Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone 

Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 

52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. This 

document is accessible at www.wmo.int/

pages/prog/arep/gaw/ozone_2010/ozone_

asst_report.html. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Stratospheric ozone layer. 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is 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– 

7671q. 

Subpart F—Recycling and Emissions 

Reduction 

■ 2. Amend § 82.154 by adding 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 82.154 Prohibitions. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(iii) Effective June 9, 2015: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19491 

(A) Isobutane (R–600a) and R–441A in 

retail food refrigerators and freezers 

(stand-alone units only); 

(B) Propane (R–290) in household 

refrigerators, freezers, and combination 

refrigerators and freezers; 

(C) Ethane (R–170) in very low 

temperature refrigeration equipment 

and equipment for non-mechanical heat 

transfer; 

(D) R–441A, propane, and isobutane 

in vending machines; and 

(E) Propane and R–441A in selfcontained room air conditioners for 

residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program 

■ 3. Appendix R to Subpart G is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix R to Subpart G of Part 82— 

Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions 

Listed in the December 20, 2011, final 

rule, Effective February 21, 2012, and 

in the April 10, 2015 Final Rule, 

Effective May 11, 2015 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Household refrigerators, 

freezers, 

and combination refrigerators 

and freezers.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R– 

600a).

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

Acceptable 

subject 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 refrigerant).

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 10th 

edition of the Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) Standard for Household Refrigerators 

and Freezers, UL 250, dated August 25, 

2000. In cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than 

those of the 10th edition of UL 250, the 

appliance must meet the requirements of 

the final rule in place of the requirements 

in the UL Standard.

The charge size must not exceed 57 g (2.01 

oz) in any refrigerator, freezer, or combination refrigerator and freezer in each 

circuit.

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 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 (portable 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 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 reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles 

and protective gloves, when handling 

these refrigerants. 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 these refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a building. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Household refrigerators, 

freezers, 

and combination refrigerators 

and freezers.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R– 

600a).

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SA6.1.1 and SA6.1.2 

of UL Standard 250, 10th edition, the following markings must be attached at the 

locations provided and must be permanent: 

(a) On or near any evaporators that can be 

contacted by the consumer: ‘‘DANGERRisk of Fire or Explosion. Flammable Refrigerant Used. Do Not Use Mechanical 

Devices To Defrost Refrigerator. Do Not 

Puncture Refrigerant 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 must 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 devices 

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 refrigerant 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., righthanded 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19493 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Retail food refrigerators 

and freezers 

(stand-alone 

units only).

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R– 

600a).

Propane (R– 

290).

R–441A 

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of 

UL Standard 471, 10th edition, the following markings must be attached at the 

locations provided and must 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 Refrigerant 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 must 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 refrigerant. 

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 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 retail food refrigerators 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., righthanded 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19494 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Very low temperature refrigeration.

Non-mechanical heat 

transfer 

(New equipment only) 

Ethane (R– 

170).

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

This refrigerant may be used only in new 

equipment specifically designed and clearly identified for the refrigerant (i.e., the 

substitute may not be used as a conversion or ‘‘retrofit’’ refrigerant for existing 

equipment designed for other refrigerants).

This refrigerant may only be used in equipment that meets all requirements in Supplement SB to the 10th edition of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, 

UL 471, dated November 24, 2010. In 

cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than those of 

the 10th 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 equipment must not 

exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) in each circuit.

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 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), 1910.157 

(portable 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 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 reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles 

and protective gloves, when handling ethane. Special care should be taken to avoid 

contact with the skin since ethane, 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 equipment with 

flammable refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a building. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service 

equipment containing ethane. Technicians 

should gain an understanding of minimizing the risk of fire and the steps to use 

flammable refrigerants safely. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19495 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Very low temperature refrigeration.

Non-mechanical heat 

transfer 

(New equipment only) 

Ethane (R– 

170).

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SB6.1.2 to SB6.1.5 of 

UL Standard 471, 10th edition, the following markings must be attached at the 

locations provided and must 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 Refrigerant 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 must be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high.

The refrigeration equipment 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 refrigerant. 

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 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 refrigeration 

equipment using this refrigerant 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. 

Example of non-mechanical heat transfer 

using this refrigerant would be use in a 

secondary loop of a thermosiphon. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19496 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Vending Machines.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R– 

600a).

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

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 other refrigerants). 

Detaching and replacing the old refrigeration 

circuit from the outer casing of the equipment with a new one containing a new 

evaporator, condenser, and refrigerant tubing within the old casing is considered 

‘‘new’’ equipment and not a retrofit of the 

old, existing equipment.

These substitutes may only be used in 

equipment that meets all requirements in 

Supplement SA to the 7th edition of the 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 

for Refrigerated Vending Machines, UL 

541, dated December, 2011. In cases 

where the final rule includes requirements 

more stringent than those of the 7th edition of UL 541, the appliance must meet 

the requirements of the final rule in place 

of the requirements in the UL Standard.

The charge size for vending machines must 

not exceed 150 g (5.29 oz) in each circuit.

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 part 

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), 1910.157 

(portable 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 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 reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles 

and protective gloves, when handling 

these refrigerants. 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 refrigeration equipment with flammable refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a building. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service 

refrigeration equipment containing these 

refrigerants. Technicians should gain an 

understanding of minimizing the risk of fire 

and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safely. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19497 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Vending Machines.

(New equipment only) 

Isobutane (R– 

600a).

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SA6.1.2 to SA6.1.5 of 

UL Standard 541, 7th edition, the following 

markings must be attached at the locations provided and must 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 Refrigerant 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 must be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high.

The refrigeration equipment 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 refrigerant. 

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 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 refrigeration 

equipment using this refrigerant 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

19498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Residential 

and lightcommercial 

air conditioning and 

heat 

pumps—

self-contained room 

air conditioners only.

(New equipment only) 

HFC–32 .........

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

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 other refrigerants) 

These refrigerants may only be used in 

equipment that meets all requirements in 

Supplement SA and Appendices B through 

F of the 8th edition of the Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Standard for Room Air 

Conditioners, UL 484, dated August 3, 

2012. In cases where the final rule includes requirements more stringent than 

those of the 8th edition of UL 484, the appliance must meet the requirements of the 

final rule in place of the requirements in 

the UL Standard.

The charge size for the entire air conditioner 

must not exceed the maximum refrigerant 

mass determined according to Appendix F 

of UL 484, 8th edition for the room size 

where the air conditioner is used. The 

charge size for these three refrigerants 

must in no case exceed 7,960 g (280.8 oz 

or 17.55 lb) of HFC–32; 1,000 g (35.3 oz 

or 2.21 lbs) of propane; or 1,000 g (35.3 

oz or 2.21 lb) of R–441A. For portable air 

conditioners, the charge size must in no 

case exceed 2,450 g (80.0 oz or 5.0 lb) of 

HFC–32; 300 g (10.6 oz or 0.66 lbs) of 

propane; or 330 g (11.6 oz or 0.72 lb) of 

R–441A. The manufacturer must design a 

charge size for the entire air conditioner 

that does not exceed the amount specified 

for the unit’s cooling capacity, as specified 

in Table A, B, C, D, or E of this Appendix.

Applicable OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 

part 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), 1910.157 

(portable 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 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 reentry should occur only after the space 

has been properly ventilated. 

Technicians and equipment manufacturers 

should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including chemical goggles 

and protective gloves, when handling 

these refrigerants. 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 air conditioning 

equipment with flammable refrigerants. 

Any recovery equipment used should be designed for flammable refrigerants. 

Any refrigerant releases should be in a wellventilated area, such as outside of a building. 

Only technicians specifically trained in handling flammable refrigerants should service 

refrigeration equipment containing these 

refrigerants. Technicians should gain an 

understanding of minimizing the risk of fire 

and the steps to use flammable refrigerants safely. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19499 

SUBSTITUTES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO USE CONDITIONS—Continued 

End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information 

Residential 

and lightcommercial 

air conditioning and 

heat 

pumps—

self-contained room 

air conditioners only.

(New equipment only) 

HFC–32 .........

Propane (R– 

290) 

R–441A 

Acceptable 

subject to 

use conditions.

As provided in clauses SA6.1.2 to SA6.1.5 of 

UL 484, 8th edition, the following markings 

must be attached at the locations provided 

and must be permanent:.

(a) On the outside of the air conditioner: 

‘‘DANGER—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained Service Personnel. 

Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing.’’.

(b) On the outside of the air conditioner: 

‘‘CAUTION—Risk of Fire or Explosion. 

Dispose of Properly In Accordance With 

Federal Or Local Regulations. Flammable 

Refrigerant Used.’’.

(c) On the inside of the air conditioner near 

the compressor: ‘‘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 outside of each portable air conditioner: ‘‘WARNING: Appliance hall be installed, operated and stored in a room with 

a floor area larger the ‘‘X’’ m2 (Y ft2).’’ The 

value ‘‘X’’ on the label must be determined 

using the minimum room size in m2 calculated using Appendix F of UL 484, 8th 

edition. For R–441A, use a lower flammability limit of 0.041 kg/m3 in calculations in 

Appendix F of UL 484, 8th edition.

All of these markings must be in letters no 

less than 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) high.

The air conditioning equipment 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 refrigerant. 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 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 air conditioning equipment using this refrigerant 

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., righthanded 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. 

Air conditioning equipment in this category 

includes: 

Window air conditioning units. 

Portable room air conditioners. 

Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

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. 10th edition. Supplement SB: Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a 

Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. November 24, 2010. 

3. UL 484. Room Air Conditioners. 8th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Room Air Conditioners Employing a Flammable Refrigerant 

in the Refrigerating System and Appendices B through F. December 21, 2007, with changes through August 3, 2012. 

4. UL 541. Refrigerated Vending Machines. 7th edition. Supplement SA: Requirements for Refrigerated Venders Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System. December 30, 2011 

The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 

of UL Standards 250, 471, 484 and 541 may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: orders@

comm-2000.com; Telephone: 1–888–853–3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1–415–352–2168); Internet address: http://ulstand 

ardsinfonet.ul.com/ or www.comm-2000.com. 

You may inspect a copy at U.S. EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 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 Docket 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. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2


ER10AP15.002</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table A. Maximum Design Charge Sizes for Window Air Conditioners 

Maximum design charge size (kg) 

Refrigerant R-32 

R-290 R-441A 

Associated cooling capacity (BTU/hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 

1.73 2.12 2.74 3.00 3.24 3.47 3.68 4.07 4.59 5.48 6.01 

0.13 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.40 0.44 

0.14 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.49 

Note: For use with self-contained air conditioning units or heat pumps with an evaporator at least 0.6 and no more than 1.0 m ab

capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the ta

Table B. Maximum Design Charge Sizes for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pum12s 

Maximum design charge size (kg) 

Refrigerant Associated cooling capacity (BTU/hr) 

R-32 

R-290 R-441A 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 

1.04 1.27 1.65 1.80 1.95 2.08 2.21 2.44 2.75 3.29 3.60 

0.08 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27 

0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.29 

Note: For use with self-contained air conditioning units or heat pumps with an evaporator no more than 0.6 m above the floor. C

between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

[FR Doc. 2015–07895 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 


ER10AP15.003</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table C. Maximum Design Charge Sizes for Wall-Mounted AC Units 

Maximum Design Charge Size (kg) 

Refrigerant 

R-32 R-290 R-441A 

Associated capacity (BTU!hr) 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 23,000 24

3.12 3.82 4.94 5.41 5.84 6.24 6.62 7.32 7.96 7.96 7.96 

0.23 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.80 

0.25 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.59 0.67 0.80 0.88 

Note: For use with self-contained air conditioners or heat pumps with an evaporator at least 1.0 and no more than 1.8 m above the 

capacities between those in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the tab

Table D. Maximum Design Charge Sizes for Ceiling-Mounted AC Units 

Maximum Design Charge Size (kg) 

Refrigerant Associated capacity (BTU!hr) 

R-32 

R-290 R-441A 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 

3.82 4.67 6.03 

0.28 0.34 0.44 

0.31 0.38 0.49 

6.61 7.14 

0.49 0.53 0.54 0.58 

7.63 

0.56 0.62 

7.96 

0.60 0.66 

7.96 

0.66 0.73 

7.96 0.74 0.82 

7.96 

0.89 0.98 

23,000 

7.96 0.97 

1.00 

24

Note: For use with self-contained air conditioners or heat pumps with an evaporator more than 1.8 m above the floor. Cooling cap

in the table are to be linearly interpolated between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table. 

Table E. Maximum Design Charge Sizes for Portable Room AC Units 

Maximum Design Charge Size (kg) 

Refrigerant Associated capacity (BTU!hr) 

R-32 R-290 R-441A 

5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 

1.56 2.35 2.45 

0.19 0.29 0.30 

0.21 0.31 0.33 

2.45 2.45 

0.30 0.30 0.33 0.33 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

23,000 

2.45 

0.30 0.33 

24

Note: For use with non-fixed portable room air conditioners or heat pumps. Cooling capacities between those in the table are to b

between the next smaller and larger capacities listed in the table.