[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24444-24474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08968]
[[Page 24443]]
Vol. 86
Thursday,
No. 86
May 6, 2021
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 82
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes Under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 86 / Thursday, May 6, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 24444]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698; FRL-10020-41-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU81
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes Under
the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
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 certain
substances in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. For the
retail food refrigeration--medium-temperature stand-alone units (new)
end-use, EPA is listing three substitutes as acceptable subject to
narrowed use limits. For the residential and light commercial air
conditioning and heat pumps (new) end-use, EPA is listing six
substitutes as acceptable subject to use conditions. Through this
action, EPA is incorporating by reference the 2019 Underwriters
Laboratories (UL) Standard 60335-2-40, 3rd Edition, which establishes
requirements for the evaluation of electrical air conditioners, heat
pumps, and dehumidifiers, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. This
action also removes an acceptable subject to use conditions listing for
the fire suppression sector because EPA more recently listed the
substitute as acceptable with no use restrictions.
DATES: This rule is effective June 7, 2021. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through https://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 20460. EPA is temporarily
suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0983; email address:
[email protected]. Notices and rulemakings under EPA's
Significant New Alternatives Policy program are available on EPA's
Stratospheric Ozone website at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary and Background
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
II. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
A. Retail Food Refrigeration--Listing of R-448A, R-449A and R-
449B as Acceptable, Subject to Narrowed Use Limits, for Retail Food
Refrigeration--Medium-Temperature Stand-Alone Units (New)
1. Background on Retail Food Refrigeration--Medium-Temperature
Stand-Alone Units (New)
2. What are R-448A, R-449A and R-449B and how do they compare to
other refrigerants in the same end-use?
3. AHRI Petition
4. What is EPA's final listing decision for R-448A, R-449A and
R-449B?
5. How is EPA responding to comments on retail food
refrigeration--medium-temperature stand-alone units (new)?
B. Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps--Listing of R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, and R-457A as
Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Use in Residential and
Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps End-Use for New
Equipment; and R-32 as Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for
Use in Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat
Pumps--Equipment Other Than Self-Contained Room Air Conditioners,
for New Equipment
1. What use conditions is EPA finalizing?
2. Background on Residential and Light Commercial Air
Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New)
3. What are the ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant
flammability?
4. What are R-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, and R-457A and
how do they compare to other refrigerants in the same end-use?
5. Why is EPA finalizing these specific use conditions?
6. What additional information is EPA including in these
listings?
7. How is EPA responding to comments on residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps?
C. Total Flooding: Removal of Powdered Aerosol E From the List
of Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
III. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
IV. 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 (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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)
V. References
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary and Background
This final rule lists new alternatives for the refrigeration and
air conditioning sector and changes an existing listing for the fire
suppression sector. Specifically, EPA is:
Listing R-448A, R-449A and R-449B as acceptable, subject
to narrowed use limits, for use in retail food refrigeration--medium-
temperature stand-alone units for new equipment;
Listing R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C and R-457A as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in residential and light
commercial air conditioning (AC) and heat pumps for new equipment; and
R-32 as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for use in residential
and light commercial AC and heat pumps--equipment other than self-
contained room air conditioners, for new equipment; and
Removing Powdered Aerosol E from the list of fire
suppression substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions in total
flooding applications.
[[Page 24445]]
EPA is finalizing these new listings after its evaluation of human
health and environmental information for these substitutes under the
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The Agency is
taking final action on these new listings in the refrigeration and air
conditioning sector and the change to the listings in the fire
suppression sector based on consideration of the information that
supported the June 12, 2020 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``2020
NPRM'') (85 FR 35874), the public comments and publicly-available
information that EPA has included in the docket. This action provides
additional flexibility for industry by providing new options in
specific uses.
EPA is not taking final action at this time on listings for three
foam blowing agent blends for extruded polystyrene: Boardstock and
billet that were also proposed in the 2020 NPRM. Based on public
comments and new information that EPA has received after issuing the
proposed rule, the Agency is considering future action on these
substitutes. EPA's consideration of options for these substitutes is
not related to and does not affect this final action on the remainder
of the proposal.
In this final action, EPA refers to listings made in a final rule
issued July 20, 2015, at 80 FR 42870 (``2015 Rule''). The 2015 Rule,
among other things, changed the listings for certain hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) and blends from acceptable to unacceptable in various end-uses
in the aerosols, refrigeration and air conditioning, and foam blowing
sectors. After a challenge to the 2015 Rule, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (``the court'') issued a
partial vacatur of the 2015 Rule ``to the extent it requires
manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute substance'' \1\ and
remanded the rule to the Agency for further proceedings.\2\ The court
also upheld EPA's listing changes as being reasonable and not
``arbitrary and capricious.'' \3\ This final rule is not EPA's response
to the court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451, 462 (D.C. Cir.
2017).
\2\ Later, the court issued a similar decision on portions of a
similar final rule issued December 1, 2016 at 81 FR 86778 (``2016
Rule''). See Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, Judgment, Case No. 17-1024
(D.C. Cir., April 5, 2019), 760 Fed. Appx. 6 (Mem). That rule is not
relevant for this action.
\3\ Mexichem Fluor, 866 F.3d at 462-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP Program Background
The SNAP program implements section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Several major provisions of section 612 are:
1. Rulemaking
Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful
to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide,
hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II
(hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)) ozone-depleting substances (ODS) 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
that it finds to be unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a
corresponding list of acceptable substitutes for specific uses.
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).
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 a new or existing chemical is introduced into
interstate commerce for significant new use as a substitute for a class
I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the
producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.
The regulations for the SNAP program are promulgated at 40 CFR part
82, subpart G, and the Agency's process for reviewing SNAP submissions
is described in regulations at 40 CFR 82.180. Under these rules, the
Agency has identified five types of listing decisions: Acceptable;
acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed
use limits; unacceptable; and pending (40 CFR 82.180(b)). Use
conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered ``use
restrictions,'' as described below. Substitutes that are deemed
acceptable with no use restrictions (no use conditions or narrowed use
limits) can be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses
in the sector. After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may determine
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way
that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health
and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as ``acceptable
subject to use conditions.'' (40 CFR 82.180(b)(2)). 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.'' Under the narrowed use limit, users
intending to adopt these substitutes ``must ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible.'' (40 CFR 82.180(b)(3)).
In making decisions regarding whether a substitute is acceptable or
unacceptable, and whether substitutes present risks that are lower than
or comparable to risks from other substitutes that are currently or
potentially available in the end-uses under consideration, EPA examines
the criteria in 40 CFR 82.180(a)(7): (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.
Many SNAP listings include ``comments'' or ``further information''
to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional
information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements
are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program.
However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other
regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)). The
``further information'' classification does not necessarily include all
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While
the items listed are not 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
[[Page 24446]]
significant changes in existing operating practices.
For additional information on the SNAP program, visit the SNAP
portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection website at https://www.epa.gov/snap. Copies of the full lists of acceptable substitutes for ODS in all
industrial sectors are available at https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-substitutes-sector. For more information on the Agency's process for
administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of
substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP
decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations found at:
https://www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. Substitutes listed as
unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or
acceptable, subject to use conditions, are also listed in the
appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
B. Does this action apply to me?
The following list identifies regulated entities that may be
affected by this rule and their respective North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes:
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325199)
Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial
and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 333415)
Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS 423740)
Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
(NAICS 44511 & 445110)
Convenience Stores (NAICS 445120)
Limited-Service Restaurants (NAICS 722513)
Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets (NAICS 722514)
Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars (NAICS 722515)
Fire Protection (NAICS 922160)
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or
organization could be affected by this action, you should carefully
examine the regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G and the revisions
below. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble?
Below is a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in the preamble
of this document:
AC--Air Conditioning
ACCA--Air Conditioning Contractors of America
ADA--Americans with Disabilities Act
AEL--Acceptable Exposure Limit
AHIA--American Industrial Hygiene Association
AHJ--Authority Having Jurisdiction
AHRI--Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
AHRTI--Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Technology
Institute
Alliance--Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
ANSI--American National Standards Institute
ASHRAE--American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers
CAA--Clean Air Act
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CAS Reg. No.--Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Identification
Number
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CFC--Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CRA--Congressional Review Act
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
DOE--United States Department of Energy
EIA--Environmental Investigation Agency
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
FR--Federal Register
GSHP--Ground-Source Heat Pump
GWP--Global Warming Potential
HARDI--Heating, Air-conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors
International
HCFC--Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC--Hydrofluorocarbon
HFO--Hydrofluoroolefin
HVAC--Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HPPH--Heat Pump Pool Heaters
HPWH-- Heat Pump Water Heaters
ICF--ICF International, Inc.
IEC--International Electrotechnical Commission
IPCC--Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LFL--Lower Flammability Limit
NAAQS--National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAFEM--North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NARA--National Archives and Records Administration
NATE--North American Technician Excellence
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRDC--Natural Resources Defense Council
ODP--Ozone Depletion Potential
ODS--Ozone Depleting Substances
OMB--United States Office of Management and Budget
OSHA--United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFAS--Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PPM--Parts Per Million
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
PTAC--Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner
PTHP--Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
RCL--Refrigerant Concentration Limit
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RSES--Refrigeration Service Engineers Society
SDS--Safety Data Sheet
SIP--State Implementation Plan
SNAP--Significant New Alternatives Policy
TLV-TWA--Threshold Limit Value-Time-Weighted Average
TFA--Trifluoroacetic Acid
TSCA--Toxic Substances Control Act
TWA--Time Weighted Average
UL--Underwriters Laboratories Inc
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
VRF--Variable Refrigerant Flow
VSLS--Very Short-Lived Substances
WEEL--Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit
WMO--World Meteorological Organization
WSHP--Water-Source Heat Pump
II. What is EPA finalizing in this action?
A. Retail Food Refrigeration--Listing of R-448A, R-449A and R-449B as
Acceptable, Subject to Narrowed Use Limits, for Retail Food
Refrigeration--Medium-Temperature Stand-Alone Units (New)
As proposed, EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as
acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, in new equipment only for
new medium-temperature stand-alone units in retail food refrigeration
(hereafter, ``new medium-temperature stand-alone units'').\4\ As
explained below, we have revised the regulatory text from the 2020 NPRM
to indicate that failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements is not the only reason other alternatives can be
deemed infeasible under the narrowed use limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA previously divided the retail food refrigeration end-use
into separate categories, including stand-alone equipment (76 FR
78832, December 20, 2011). The Agency further subdivided stand-alone
equipment to distinguish between medium-temperature equipment, which
maintains products above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C), and low-temperature
equipment, which maintains products at or below 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C)
(80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24447]]
1. Background on Retail Food Refrigeration--Medium-Temperature Stand-
Alone Units (New)
Retail food refrigeration is characterized by storing and
displaying, generally for sale, food and beverages at different
temperatures for different products (e.g., chilled and frozen food).
Stand-alone units in retail food refrigeration (hereafter, ``stand-
alone units'') consist of refrigerators, freezers, and reach-in coolers
(either open or with doors) where all refrigeration components are
integrated and, for the smallest types, the refrigeration circuit is
entirely brazed or welded. For purposes of the SNAP program, medium-
temperature stand-alone units maintain a temperature above 32 [deg]F (0
[deg]C). For further background on this end-use, see the 2020 NPRM at
85 FR 35877.
In the 2015 Rule, EPA changed the listing of 31 refrigerants \5\
from acceptable to unacceptable for new medium temperature stand-alone
units. At that time, EPA indicated that it believed that other
alternatives that posed lower risk were available for this end use.
After the 2015 Rule, as part of a petition from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI),\6\ described in section 3
below, EPA received information indicating that manufacturers were
unable to design certain types of medium-temperature stand-alone
equipment with the available acceptable alternatives, and that certain
equipment configurations would require significantly larger
refrigeration equipment that could jeopardize compliance with the ADA
for those types of equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Specifically, FOR12A, FOR12B, HFC-134a, HFC-227ea, KDD6,
R125/290/134a/600a (55.0/1.0/42.5/1.5), R-404A, R-407A, R-407B, R-
407C, R-407F, R-410A, R-410B, R-417A, R-421A, R-421B, R-422A, R-
422B, R-422C, R-422D, R-424A, R-426A, R-428A, R-434A, R-437A, R-
438A, R-507A, RS-24 (2002 formulation), RS-44 (2003 formulation),
SP34E, and THR-03.
\6\ AHRI, 2017. Petition Requesting EPA SNAP Approval of R-448A/
449A/449B for Medium Temperature, Stand-Alone Retail Food
Refrigeration Equipment. Submitted March 20, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are R-448A, R-449A and R-449B and how do they compare to other
refrigerants in the same end-use?
R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice[supreg] N-40, is a
weighted blend of 26 percent HFC-32,\7\ which is also known as
difluoromethane (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number [CAS Reg.
No.] 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-
pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which
is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20
percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-
ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and seven percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is
also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-
24-9). R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon[supreg] XP 40, is a
weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, 24.7 percent HFC-125, 25.7
percent HFC-134a, and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf. R-449B, marketed under
the trade name Forane[supreg] 449B, is a weighted blend of 25.2 percent
HFC-32, 24.3 percent HFC-125, 27.3 percent HFC-134a, and 23.2 percent
HFO-1234yf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In this final rule, we refer to this refrigerant with the
technical prefix (i.e., R-32) and with the composition designating
prefix (i.e., HFC-32) interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA previously listed R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable
refrigerants in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning
end-uses, including other retail food refrigeration end-use categories
(e.g., 80 FR 42053, July 16, 2015; 81 FR 70029, October 11, 2016; 82 FR
33809, July 21, 2017; 83 FR 50026, October 4, 2018; 84 FR 64765,
November 25, 2019).
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for R-448A, R-
449A, and R-449B are provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0698) at https://www.regulations.gov. EPA performed an assessment
to examine the health and environmental risks of each of these
substitutes, and these assessments are also available in the docket for
this rule.8 9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food
Refrigeration (Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-448A.
\9\ ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food
Refrigeration (Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-449A.
\10\ ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food
Refrigeration (Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New
Equipment); Substitute: R-449B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental information: R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B have an ozone
depletion potential (ODP) of zero.\11\ Their components, HFC-32, HFC-
125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and in the case of R-448A, HFO-1234ze(E),
have global warming potentials (GWPs) of 675; 3,500; 1,430; \12\ less
than one to four; 13 14 15 and less than one to six;
16 17 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass
percentage, then R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B have GWPs of about 1,390,
1,400, and 1,410, respectively. HFC-32 (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5), HFC-125
(CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6), HFC-134a (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2), HFO-1234yf
(CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1) and HFO-1234ze(E) (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9)--
the components of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B--are excluded from the
definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations
(see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state
implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ If a compound contains no chlorine, bromine, or iodine, or
if it is a solid under conditions of use, its ODP is generally
considered to be zero. Unless otherwise stated, all non-zero ODPs in
this document are from EPA's regulations at appendix A to subpart A
of 40 CFR part 82.
\12\ Unless otherwise specified, GWP values are from 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. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom 996
pp.
\13\ Nielsen et al., 2007. Nielsen, O.J., Javadi, M.S., Sulbaek
Andersen, M.P., Hurley, M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R. 2007.
Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics
and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals,
and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22. Available
online at http://www.cogci.dk/network/OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
\14\ Hodnebrog [Oslash]. et al., 2013. Hodnebrog [Oslash].,
Etminan, M., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Marston, G., Myhre, G., Nielsen,
C.J., Shine, K.P., Wallington, T.J.: Global Warming Potentials and
Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A
Comprehensive Review, Reviews of Geophysics, 51, 300-378,
doi:10.1002/rog.20013, 2013.
\15\ WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project-- Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2018. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf. In this action, the 100-year GWP
values are used.
\16\ Ibid.
\17\ Hodnebrog [Oslash]. et al., 2013 and Javadi et al., 2008.
M.S. Javadi, R. S[oslash]ndergaard, O.J. Nielsen, M.D. Hurley, and
T.J. Wellington, 2008. Atmospheric chemistry of trans-
CF3CH=CHF: Products and mechanisms of hydroxyl radical
and chlorine atom-initiated oxidation. Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics Discussions 8, 1069-1088, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of
these refrigerant blends in the course of maintaining, servicing,
repairing or disposing of an appliance or industrial process
refrigeration is prohibited as provided in section 608(c)(2) of the CAA
and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).
Flammability information: R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as formulated,
and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, are
not flammable.
Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to
these substitutes include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitutes may
also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, the substitutes may cause irregular heartbeat. The
substitutes could cause asphyxiation if
[[Page 24448]]
air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health
effects are common to many refrigerants.
The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established
workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1,000 parts per
million (ppm) as an eight hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) for
HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a, and 500 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFO-
1234yf, the components of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B; and 800 ppm as an
8-hr TWA for HFO-1234ze(E), also a component of R-448A. The
manufacturer of R-448A recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of
890 ppm on an 8-hr TWA for the blend. The manufacturer of R-449A
recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hr TWA for the blend. The
manufacturer of R-449B recommends an AEL of 865 ppm on an 8-hr TWA for
the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA
WEELs and manufacturers' AELs and address potential health risks by
following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturers' safety
data sheets (SDS), in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety
precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-448A, R-449A,
and R-449B have ODPs of zero, comparable to or lower than other
acceptable substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to
0.098.
R-448A's GWP of 1,390, R-449A's GWP of 1,400, and R-449B's GWP of
1,410 are higher than those of other acceptable substitutes for retail
food refrigeration--medium-temperature stand-alone units (new),
including ammonia absorption, R-744, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs
ranging from zero to 630.
Information regarding the flammability and toxicity of other
available alternatives are provided in the listing decisions previously
made (see https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-stand-alone-equipment).
Flammability and toxicity risks for R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B are
comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other
available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be
minimized by use consistent with ASHRAE Standard 15 and other industry
standards, recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS, and other safety
precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
Although R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B present a higher overall risk
to human health and the environment than other acceptable alternatives
in this end-use category based on significantly higher GWPs than other
available alternatives, with GWPs ranging from zero (ammonia in a
secondary loop) to 630 (R-513A), as provided below, EPA has determined
that other alternatives may not be available for certain uses and users
of medium-temperature stand-alone equipment. Thus, EPA is listing these
substitutes as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in this end-
use. Under the SNAP program, when using an alternative listed as
acceptable with narrowed use limits, users, including manufacturers, of
new medium-temperature stand-alone equipment will need to ascertain
that the other alternatives are not technically feasible before using
R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B in such equipment.\18\ Consistent with
existing SNAP regulations, they must document the results of their
evaluation that showed the other alternatives to be not technically
feasible and maintain that documentation in their files. This
documentation, which does not need to be submitted to EPA unless
requested to demonstrate compliance, ``shall include descriptions of
substitutes examined and rejected, processes or products in which the
substitute is needed, reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards, and the anticipated date
other substitutes will be available and projected time for switching to
other available substitutes.'' (40 CFR 82.180(b)(3)).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ As noted in the proposal, under the SNAP regulations the
definition of ``use'' includes ``but [is] not limited to use in a
manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or
in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other
subsequent uses;'' hence, this definition includes the manufacture
of a product pre-charged with a particular refrigerant. (40 CFR
82.172).
\19\ In the regulatory text of the 2020 NPRM, the description of
the information to document was included in the ``Further
information'' column. Because this information is required under the
existing SNAP regulations at 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3), we have listed
this in the ``Narrowed use limits'' column in this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. AHRI Petition
AHRI petitioned EPA under CAA section 612(d) to add R-448A, R-449A,
and R-449B to the list of acceptable substitutes for new and retrofit
medium-temperature stand-alone units. See 40 CFR 82.184 for further
information regarding petitions under the SNAP program. EPA and AHRI
exchanged information related to this petition between March 2017 and
November 2018. Information received as part of this petition is
relevant to this listing, and EPA's action in this rulemaking may be
considered responsive to certain aspects of this petition, although EPA
is not taking formal action on the petition in this rulemaking. We
describe the contents of the petition, including elements that we are
not considering in this action, in detail in the 2020 NPRM, and the
petition is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. What is EPA's final listing decision for R-448A, R-449A and R-449B?
EPA is listing R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable, subject to
narrowed use limits, for new medium-temperature stand-alone units in
this final rule.
EPA understands that to construct certain medium-temperature stand-
alone units with the available acceptable refrigerants would require
significantly larger components, or the addition of multiple
refrigeration systems, which may lead to redesigning the units in such
a manner that could be inconsistent with the ADA requirements. AHRI's
petition specifically pointed to R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as
refrigerants that would, on the contrary, be feasible in such equipment
and requested that those refrigerants be added to the list of
acceptable refrigerants for new medium-temperature stand-alone units.
Users under SNAP, including manufacturers, using a substitute
listed as acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits, must ascertain
that other substitutes or alternatives are not technically feasible. As
explained in the initial SNAP rulemaking (59 FR 13063, March 18, 1994),
under the narrowed use limit, ``[u]sers are expected to undertake a
thorough technical investigation of alternatives before implementing
the otherwise restricted substitute'' (i.e., R-448A, R-449A or R-449B
for this rule). Further, ``[t]he Agency expects users to contact
vendors of alternatives to explore with experts whether or not other
acceptable substitutes are technically feasible for the process,
product or system in question'' (i.e., in new medium-temperature stand-
alone units for this rule) to the otherwise restricted substitute. The
initial SNAP rule also explained that ``[a]lthough users are not
required to report the results of their investigations to EPA,
companies must document these results, and retain them in company files
for the purpose of demonstrating compliance'' for up to five years
after the date of creation of the records. This information includes
descriptions of:
[[Page 24449]]
Process or product in which the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and rejected;
Reason for rejection of other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety standards; and/or
Anticipated date other substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
An example of a viable explanation under a narrowed use limit in
this circumstance could include information such as a market analysis
of the components for other alternatives that indicate a lack of
availability in the required sizes or with required features, or design
diagrams that indicate excessive loss of refrigerated volumes or
failure to meet ADA requirements. As explained below, we have revised
the regulatory text from the 2020 NPRM to indicate that failure to
comply with ADA requirements is not the only reason the other
alternatives can be deemed infeasible under the narrowed use limit.
5. How is EPA responding to comments on retail food refrigeration--
medium-temperature stand-alone units?
EPA received comments from organizations with various interests in
retail food refrigeration regarding the proposed listing of R-448A, R-
449A and R-449B. Most commenters supported the proposed listings,
although some supported listing these refrigerants as acceptable
without narrowed use limits and others did not support the listing at
all. Other commenters addressed the environmental impacts of the
proposed listing of R-448A, R-449A and R-449B and the proposed narrowed
use limits. Other comments unrelated to these listings and beyond the
scope of this final action are addressed in section III.
Commenters on these proposed listings were AHRI, the Alliance for
Responsible Atmospheric Policy (the Alliance), North American
Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers (NAFEM), and Heating, Air-
conditioning, & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), four
industry organizations; Chemours and Honeywell, two chemical producers;
Hussmann Corporation, Johnson Controls, Lennox International Inc.,
Parker Hannifin Corporation, and Rheem Manufacturing Company, five
equipment manufacturers; and the Natural Resource Defense Council
(NRDC) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), two
environmental organizations.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow.
a. Support Listings
Comment: HARDI indicated that it ``supports the overall effort to
phase down the use of HFC refrigerants'' and held that the listing of
R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B (and others discussed later in its comments)
``is one part of a larger process in the industry's effort to phase
down older refrigerants.'' Lennox International Inc. also supported the
proposed listing of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B for use in medium
temperature stand-alone refrigeration applications indicating that
``[t]hese refrigerants generally replace R404[A] and provide
significant environmental benefits while providing the appropriate
technology to meet the ongoing regulatory requirements.''
Response: The Agency acknowledges HARDI's and Lennox's support for
this proposed listing. After considering all the public comments on
this proposal, we are finalizing this listing, as described in section
II.A.
Comment: Parker Hannifin Corporation's Sporlan division ``agrees
with AHRI's positions and statements concerning this proposed listing,
and [they] support it and the narrowed use limits as proposed.''
Response: To the extent this comment refers to comments from the
AHRI, we have responded separately. To the extent Sporlan is supporting
the proposed listing including the narrowed use limits, we acknowledge
this support. After considering all the public comments on this
proposal, we are finalizing this listing, as described in section II.A.
b. Support Listings Without Narrowed Use Limits
i. Comparison to Other Acceptable SNAP Listings
Comment: The Alliance, Chemours, Honeywell and Rheem supported
finding R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B acceptable, but they did not support
the proposal to make such listings subject to narrowed use limits.
NAFEM also supported approval of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B without use
restrictions ``so that those refrigerants still can be allowed for
critical applications.'' Noting that these blends are listed as
acceptable for low temperature stand-alone equipment, Rheem commented
that ``a common platform of low-GWP refrigerants is more beneficial to
the installer and service personnel as well as for the manufacturer.''
Response: In this final rule, EPA is including the narrowed use
limits for these refrigerants. EPA explained why these alternatives
posed higher risk to human health and the environment than other
acceptable substitutes in this end-use in the proposal (85 FR 35879-
35880, June 12, 2020) and summarized those findings again above. In the
proposal, EPA noted that the GWPs of these compounds, ranging from
1,390 to 1,410, ``are higher than those of other acceptable substitutes
for retail food refrigeration--medium-temperature stand-alone units
(new)'' (85 FR 35878, June 12, 2020) and pointed to examples of such
acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs and otherwise similar overall
risk to human health and the environment. For those same reasons, EPA
concludes in this final action that these alternatives pose higher risk
to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes
in this end-use. By finding these higher-GWP blends acceptable subject
to narrowed use limits, EPA is allowing for these refrigerants to be
used under SNAP as long as the requirements for the narrowed use limit
have been met. Further, we note that because EPA evaluates the
available or potentially available alternatives for different end-use
categories separately, given that each intersection of an alternative
and end-use category poses unique risk to human health and the
environment, as well as unique technical challenges and requirements
that must be met in order for a substitute to be available in a
particular end-use or application, we would not necessarily list the
same refrigerant as acceptable across multiple end-use or end-use
categories. For example, in low temperature stand-alone equipment, EPA
has listed a number of other refrigerants as acceptable with overall
risk, including GWPs, similar to or greater than the overall risk,
including GWPs, of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B, unlike in medium
temperature stand-alone equipment. To the extent industry stakeholders
see a benefit for a single refrigerant for use across all their
equipment, and find that the required analysis to use R-448A, R-449A,
or R-449B under a narrowed use limit does not support such across-the-
board use, we note that there are already several alternatives that are
listed acceptable for both medium and low temperature equipment that
they can pursue.
Comment: Chemours notes that R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B have been
listed as acceptable in several other end-uses. They contend that ``EPA
fails to provide a rational basis for treating R-448A, R-449A and R-
449B differently
[[Page 24450]]
in this proposed rule as opposed to past approvals.''
Response: Since the inception of the SNAP program, alternatives are
evaluated on an end-use by end-use (or in this case, an end-use
category) basis. There is no reason to believe whether and how an
alternative is listed in one end-use would be the same as a different
end-use. In this case, as described above and in the proposal, EPA
finds that, with other criteria being comparable, the GWP of R-448A, R-
449A, and R-449B, each of which has a GWP of approximately 1,400 that
is higher compared to other acceptable alternatives in the medium
temperature stand-alone equipment end-use, justifies the need for
narrowed use limits. Other acceptable alternatives are available for
this end-use which have GWPs of approximately 630 or lower, and some of
which have already been implemented in equipment within this end-use
category. EPA had not listed R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable
without restriction in this end-use before this final rule specifically
because the higher GWPs indicate they pose a greater overall risk to
human health and the environment. After receiving information
indicating that manufacturers were unable to design certain types of
medium-temperature stand-alone equipment with the available acceptable
alternatives, we are finding the use of these high-GWP blends
acceptable in this end-use consistent with the narrowed use limit
established by this final rule.
Comment: Chemours states that R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B have
substantially lower GWPs compared with current refrigerants.
Response: EPA understands Chemours' comment to refer to substitutes
in existing equipment that have higher GWPs, such as HFC-134a, R-404A
or R-507A, with GWPs of 1,430, 3,920 and 3,990, respectively. EPA
changed the listing for these and certain other high-GWP refrigerants
to unacceptable in stand-alone equipment and other end-uses in the 2015
Rule. EPA compared the substitutes under consideration in this action
with other available or potentially available substitutes and not with
unacceptable substitutes which are prohibited under SNAP. While some
acceptable alternatives for new medium temperature stand-alone
equipment do have higher GWPs than the three refrigerant blends under
consideration in this action, EPA notes that those refrigerants have an
ODP being comprised in part of ozone-depleting chemicals, e.g., HCFCs.
However, regulations promulgated under CAA section 605 phasing out the
production and import of HCFCs also ban their use in new equipment. All
acceptable non-ozone depleting alternatives for this end-use category
have GWPs lower than R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B, in some cases
significantly so (e.g., GWPs less than 10 compared to GWPs of
approximately 1,400 for these three blends).
ii. Insufficient Justification for Narrowed Use Limits
Comment: The Alliance stated that EPA ``does not offer
justification why the [narrowed] use limits are necessary.'' Chemours
says that ``EPA fails to provide any independent rationale supporting
such [narrowed use limits] conditions'' and Honeywell added that ``the
proposed rule offers no justification for such [narrowed] use limits
and indeed they are not necessary.'' Honeywell contended that EPA did
not explain the specific reasons why narrowed use limits are necessary.
Johnson Controls requested EPA to add justification for the narrowed
use limits.
Response: EPA provided justification for the narrowed use limits in
the proposal (85 FR 35879-35880, June 12, 2020). These alternatives
pose higher risk to human health and the environment than other
acceptable substitutes listed in this end-use. Relying on information
submitted by AHRI in its petition to EPA, the proposal explained that
while other acceptable alternatives were available for certain types of
equipment within this end-use, the thermodynamic properties of other
acceptable alternatives would require larger components and potentially
lead to designs that would fail to comply with the ADA for certain
equipment. For instance, in its comments, the Alliance quoted EPA
statements from the proposal to this effect. EPA provided some examples
of equipment within the medium-temperature stand-alone equipment
category that have been manufactured with other acceptable alternatives
that are available and for which there is no known conflict with the
ADA requirements. Other commenters such as EIA added to this record.
Hence, based on the information from AHRI and the evidence of existing,
available equipment using acceptable refrigerants, EPA is concluding in
this final action that within this end-use category, while some models
can be manufactured using other acceptable alternatives, those
alternatives might not be feasible for other models which could be
manufactured with R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B. This conclusion warrants
the narrowed use limit for these alternatives and conforms with the
instances where listing with a narrowed use limit is justified as
discussed in the original SNAP Rule (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994) and
codified in our regulations. Specifically, ``[e]ven though the Agency
can restrict the use of a substitute based on the potential for adverse
effects, it may be necessary to permit a narrowed range of use within a
sector end-use because of the lack of alternatives for specialized
applications'' (40 CFR 82.180(b)(3)). Here we find there may be
specialized applications where the other acceptable alternatives are
not feasible and use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B may be feasible.
Thus, although we find R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B have the potential
adverse effects due to their higher GWP compared to the other
alternatives in this end-use category, we find that their use may be
justified in certain equipment under a narrowed use limit.
iii. Clarification of Narrowed Use Limits
Comment: Johnson Controls requests that EPA provide clarification
regarding the narrowed use limits.
Response: Because this comment was not specific on what needs to be
clarified, no specific response is possible. However, we note that
other comments had clearer requests for clarification on the narrowed
use limits and we have addressed those in this final rule. These
clarifications may also respond to Johnson Controls' request.
Comment: Hussmann Corporation asked whether the narrowed use limit
requirement to analyze and document that the other alternatives are
infeasible before using R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B is to be performed
for each model or a family of models. AHRI also asked whether the
justification document would be required for each piece of equipment.
Similarly, NAFEM stated ``EPA is unclear whether documentation may be
kept by product number or for a group of similar products or group of
alternatives.'' NAFEM also quoted the text in the ``Further
information'' column on 85 FR 35893 and stated this was ambiguous in
the level of detail being requested. They said that it was important to
receive clarification that EPA's expectations of the documentation
``will be flexible to recognize the different ways manufacturers may be
able to categorize products, document by issue, or perhaps individual
products based on a particular manufacturer's operations.''
Response: EPA's SNAP regulations do not specify whether the
analysis should be performed or documented for models
[[Page 24451]]
or families of models or group of alternatives. A manufacturer or other
user wishing to avail itself of the flexibility provided by the
narrowed use limit under the SNAP program is required to conduct the
evaluation described in the SNAP regulations (see 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3)),
document that the circumstances described in the those regulations have
been met, and retain such documentation as required under those
regulations. NAFEM said ``[t]here can be great variability in these
products, with certain features perhaps customized for particular
customers.'' Thus, a single analysis might not be able to adequately
cover an entire family of models for these products or their customized
design. EPA can envision scenarios where an analysis that shows other
alternatives are infeasible could cover more than one model, however.
For instance, models of similar size that differ in some
characteristics--facings, shelf placements, etc.--without affecting the
load, the required refrigeration equipment, and the determination that
other alternatives are not feasible (e.g., due to ADA concerns) might
be grouped together under a single analysis. Another example might
include a model that is offered with doors and without. If the analysis
addresses both types of equipment and concludes the with-doors version
cannot use the other alternatives due to refrigeration equipment sizes
leading to noncompliance with ADA, and the open-type version is of
higher capacity and requires even larger refrigeration equipment to
maintain the refrigeration load that has increased because the case is
open to the surrounding air rather than enclosed by the doors, then the
analysis could be applied to both models. In any such situation the
analysis and any other documentation would need to address the factors
listed in 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3), including listing the different products
being evaluated, the reasons for rejection of other alternatives, the
anticipated date other alternatives will be available, and the
projected time for switching to available alternatives. If the analysis
relies on a conclusion that the inability of one product to use the
other acceptable alternatives also logically means the additional
product(s) would not be able to use the other alternatives, the basis
for that conclusion should be explained.
Comment: Hussmann Corporation asked what would be required to show
that other alternatives are not feasible, giving examples of testing
results and calculations. Rheem similarly requested that EPA
``[c]larify the burden of proof required for Narrowed Use Limits for R-
448A, R-449A, and R-449B'' asking ``[w]hat type of calculations or test
results constitute sufficient proof of design unfeasibility.''
Response: EPA does not dictate how a manufacturer or other user
must prove that other alternatives are not feasible, as long as the
requirements of the regulations regarding narrowed use limits are met.
The regulations regarding narrowed use limits likewise give some leeway
in how one determines the need for the otherwise restricted substitute.
The regulations state that the user must ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible and that the documented
analysis must include the other substitutes examined and rejected, the
products where the alternatives (R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B) are needed,
and the reason for rejecting the other alternatives. EPA responds to
several comments, summarized below, that address the suitability of
certain types of information that could be used and retained as part of
the analysis required under the narrowed use limits.
Comment: AHRI asked whether ``a description of the enabling
regulations needed plus a period of time for preparation might be
sufficient documentation'' to meet the requirements to use R-448A, R-
449A, or R-449B under the narrowed use limits. They provided as an
example ``higher charge limits allowed for A2L refrigerant plus three
years to prepare for the transition.''
Response: The regulations pertaining to narrowed use limits require
manufacturers or other users to include an anticipated time other
alternatives might be available and a projected time for switching to
other alternatives. Therefore, information such as what AHRI describes
could be useful as part of addressing this portion of the analysis that
must be performed and documented before relying on the flexibility
under SNAP provided by the narrowed use limit that allows use of R-
448A, R-449A, or R-449B in appropriate circumstances. As described
elsewhere, other information must also be included in this analysis.
EPA does not generally believe, however, an open-ended time period
(e.g., when ``enabling regulations'' are completed) would meet the
intent of the requirement to address the anticipated time other
alternatives might be available and the projected time for
transitioning to other substitutes because that kind of general
statement does not speak directly to the anticipated timing for
availability or the projected timing for making the transition.
Instead, EPA anticipates that manufacturers would use their technical
expertise to describe the projected timing for these steps. For
example, manufacturers could use their technical expertise to describe
the regulations or standards that might need updating and how those
items affect the choice of refrigerant, what steps must be taken to
update the regulations and how long those steps are expected to take,
and ultimately what steps are needed to implement the change in
refrigerant in their equipment and whether those steps can commence
even before the regulation and standard updates are final. On this last
item of implementing the new refrigerant, EPA believes the additional
three years in AHRI's comments could be reasonable for this type of
equipment in appropriate circumstances. We note this is similar to the
three years and five months found as an achievable transition time in
previous regulations specifically for small medium temperature stand-
alone equipment (80 FR 42870, July 20, 2015).
iv. Grounds for Utilizing the Narrowed Use Limits
Comment: The Alliance requested clarification on whether R-448A, R-
449A, and R-449B may be used in products that did conform with the ADA
requirements but for other reasons the other alternatives are not able
to be used. AHRI maintained that ADA compliance ``would not be the only
reason that would allow for the use of these products'' and requested
clarification of such.
Response: The Alliance did not provide specifics on what these
other reasons could be, so EPA is not addressing whether a given reason
would or would not justify the use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B under
the narrowed use limit. In considering this comment, EPA acknowledges
that under the existing requirements in the SNAP regulations for
utilizing a substitute under a narrowed use limit, it is possible that
there are other reasons beside ADA requirements that the other
alternatives could not be used and that inclusion of the phrase ``due
to the inability to meet ADA requirements'' in the regulatory text as
part of the narrowed use limit could unnecessarily limit users' ability
to meet the requirements for using these substitutes under the narrowed
use limit. Accordingly, EPA concludes that it is appropriate to clarify
the text as the comment requests and is finalizing the regulatory text
without this phrase included in the narrowed use limit. Thus, compared
to the regulatory text of the proposed rule (85 FR 35892), under the
``Narrowed use limits'' column, EPA in this final action is not
including the phrase ``due to the inability to meet
[[Page 24452]]
ADA requirements'' but maintains the information in the ``Further
information'' column that mentions ADA requirements as a possible
reason for rejection of other alternatives. Under the final action, a
manufacturer relying on ``other reasons'' for the narrowed use limit
would need to document their analysis justifying this use, including
the required information as described in the existing SNAP regulations,
the same as those that found ADA requirements would be violated using
the other alternatives must document their analysis.
Comment: NAFEM noted the proposed rule pointed to the possible
inability to comply with the ADA with the other alternatives as a
justification to use R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B. NAFEM contended that
other reasons may exist that would render the other alternatives not
feasible for new medium temperature stand-alone equipment. They listed
technical challenges such as ``[s]afety standards, user space
constraints, energy efficiency requirements, and other performance
considerations'' as reasons where use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B
might be justifiable.
Response: EPA agrees that there could be other reasons to determine
that other alternatives are infeasible under the narrowed use limit.
EPA concludes that in reviewing the AHRI petition and similar
information such as that supplied in NAFEM's comments, including the
September 1, 2015 letter attached to their comments, requesting R-448A
and R-449A be acceptable for this equipment, the Agency considers ADA
compliance to be one possible reason for the use of these high-GWP
blends. That said, we cannot predict if all the other challenges listed
by NAFEM, or any future challenges, might render the other alternatives
technically infeasible for certain equipment in this end use, but
acknowledge that such situations could arise. In this final rule, we
clarify that compliance with the ADA is one example that a manufacturer
might find makes the other alternatives technically infeasible, and
thereby justify the use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B under the narrowed
use limit, but that other reasons, if supported by the manufacturer's
analysis under the SNAP regulations, might likewise justify use of
these high-GWP blends under the narrowed use limit.
v. Narrowed Use Limits Are Burdensome
Comment: Chemours was opposed to the narrowed use limits and stated
that the narrowed use limits ``impose unnecessary burden on the
industry's transition away from high global warming potential (`GWP')
refrigerants.'' They stated that other alternatives have GWPs up to 65%
higher than those of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B and implied that
approving these three blends without the narrowed use limit would
support industry transition from high GWP refrigerants.
Response: EPA disagrees that the narrowed use limits impose
unnecessary burden. As described above, EPA finds that the narrowed use
limits are necessary in this circumstance and without their inclusion,
the Agency would not be able to find these three refrigerants
acceptable for this specific end-use. These refrigerants present an
overall greater risk to human health and the environment due to their
higher GWP but for other factors have similar risks to other acceptable
alternatives. All other zero-ODP alternatives that are acceptable
within this end-use category have lower GWPs than the three found
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in this action. The listing
of these three refrigerants subject to narrowed use limits under the
SNAP regulations provides an option to use R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B,
despite the higher GWP and higher overall risk to human health and the
environment that these refrigerants pose compared to other acceptable
refrigerants, when use of the other lower GWP alternatives is
determined to be technically infeasible.
Comment: Chemours contends that manufacturers should not be
required to conduct the technical analysis to justify the use of R-
448A, R-449A, and R-449B under the narrowed use limit because AHRI has
already completed this effort.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. While EPA relies on
information provided by AHRI to justify the listing of these high GWP
blends, AHRI did not provide an analysis on any specific model that
manufacturers offer and did not perform such analysis for all types of
equipment that fall within this end-use category. Accordingly, the AHRI
petition does not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3) for
users who wish to avail themselves of the flexibility provided by the
narrowed use limit to use R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B where other
alternatives are found to be technically infeasible.
Comment: Chemours points out that how a unit is placed within a
store could impact aisle widths and compliance with ADA. Chemours says
that manufacturers would need to know the layout of any store that
would use a medium temperature stand-alone unit in order to justify the
need for R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B as the only available alternatives
that would comply with the ADA. They held that knowing the layout of
each location where a unit is placed was an unreasonable burden. As
such, they concluded that EPA should list these alternatives as
acceptable without imposing narrowed use limits.
Response: EPA disagrees that manufacturers would necessarily need
to know the layout of the store to meet the requirements of the
narrowed use limit. For example, information in the AHRI petition
contended certain equipment models would not comply with the ADA using
other available alternatives due to counter height requirements. If the
required analysis shows that other alternatives are technically
infeasible in such models due to counter height requirements and the
ADA requirements, that could support a manufacturer's justification for
reliance on the narrowed use limit in this equipment without knowledge
of store layouts. In addition, as noted above, there may be
justifications other than ADA compliance that could be used for relying
on the narrowed use limit, as long as the requirements of 40 CFR
82.180(b)(3) are met.
Comment: Chemours also states that conducting a pre-manufacture
analysis to justify the use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B based on ADA
issues would not account for situations in which a unit was moved
within a store or perhaps transferred to another retail location where
a unit manufactured with another alternative would be feasible. They
held that this possibility of a user moving a unit would make the
narrowed use limit requirement to justify the use of the alternative
ineffective and therefore argued for removing those narrowed use
limits.
Response: EPA understands that equipment may be moved or sold on a
secondary market. However, the intent of this action is that for those
availing themselves of the narrowed use limits provided in this rule
conduct the necessary analysis and maintain the necessary
documentation. Such documentation provides the justification to use
these refrigerants under SNAP which otherwise would be unacceptable due
to the higher risk to human health and the environment that they
impose. If a chemical manufacturer or original equipment manufacturer
is concerned with downstream users, they could consider options such as
including relevant information about the narrowed use limit with their
sales documentation. In addition, as noted above, there may be
justifications other than ADA compliance that could be
[[Page 24453]]
used for relying on the narrowed use limit, as long as the requirements
of 40 CFR 82.180(b)(3) are met.
Comment: Chemours says the narrowed use limits ``unreasonably
discourage the use of R-448A, R-449A and R-449B'' as compared to
finding these refrigerants acceptable without use restrictions. They
say that instead approving, without narrowed use limits, these
refrigerants with a GWP lower than the currently used refrigerants
would meet the Agency's duty to evaluate when an alternative would
reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.
Response: Although EPA lists refrigerants under CAA section 612, we
do not encourage or discourage the use of any particular refrigerant.
There are several alternatives listed as acceptable, some with use
conditions, some, as in this final rule, with narrowed use limits, and
some without use restrictions. In this final rule, we have evaluated
these refrigerants under the SNAP program's comparative risk framework
and concluded the narrowed use limits are appropriate because they
present an overall greater risk to human health and the environment due
to their higher GWP but for other factors have similar risks to other
acceptable alternatives. Given that R-448A, R-449A and R-449B were not
listed as acceptable for medium temperature stand-alone equipment prior
to this final rule, the listing, even with a narrowed use limit, would
not limit the use of these refrigerants. Rather, it could serve to
increase the use of these refrigerants should manufacturers choose to
adopt them based on their analyses.
Comment: Chemours indicated that requirements of a narrowed use
limit including the need for a documented transition plan to other
alternatives are unworkable, as they require understanding when other
substitutes will be available and a timeline for transitioning. They
say users would not know what future regulations or requirements may
exist, or what new alternatives may be introduced in the future, and
would therefore need to speculate on these aspects in their analysis to
justify the use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B. As such, Chemours says
these refrigerants should be found acceptable without narrowed use
limits.
Response: EPA finalized regulations on narrowed use limits in 1994
and has implemented such narrowed use limits in past decisions with no
indication that such listings are unworkable. EPA further notes that
the existing regulations, quoted in the proposal, require an
``anticipated date other substitutes will be available and projected
time for switching to other available substitutes.'' (emphasis added).
Thus, EPA does not view these requirements as requiring manufacturers
to provide a precise date of what will be available and when a
transition will occur, but rather a reasonable assessment of such dates
based on their technical expertise. It would be reasonable to assume
chemical producers and suppliers could assist in this evaluation for
users that choose to avail themselves of the flexibility offered by
listing these refrigerants subject to narrowed use limits. Accordingly,
EPA disagrees that it should find these refrigerants acceptable without
narrowed use limits based on the uncertainties identified in this
comment.
Comment: Chemours further argues against including the narrowed use
limits by indicating that the requirement to retain any analysis that
supports the use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B in medium temperature
stand-alone equipment is to support potential enforcement actions, and
that developing such documentation including a transition plan is
unreasonable ``when the Agency cannot concurrently provide clarity for
this segment.''
Response: EPA is not addressing enforcement in this final rule.
However, we note that the existing regulations covering narrowed use
limits, as quoted in the proposal, require a manufacturer to ``retain
the results on file for purposes of demonstrating compliance.''
(emphasis added). As the requirement to retain the analysis is
consistent with the existing SNAP regulations, which are not modified
in this action, EPA disagrees with the suggestion that it should not
finalize the narrowed use limits based on the points identified in this
comment. The comment was unclear on what type of ``clarity for this
segment'' Chemours is seeking; however, we have provided clarity for
this end-use category including the listings to date of multiple
alternatives as acceptable and the listing in this final rule providing
flexibility to use R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B under SNAP subject to
narrowed use limits.
c. Oppose Listings
i. Other Alternatives Available With Lower GWP
Comment: The EIA and the NRDC opposed the listing of R-448A, R-449A
and R-449B as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits. They indicated
that because of these refrigerants' high GWP, they should not be listed
for this type of equipment. EIA claimed that better alternatives, ``R-
513C, R-290, and R-600a'' exist and pointed to three different
manufacturers that offer a wide range of equipment that meets ADA
requirements and uses lower-GWP refrigerants. NRDC likewise noted SNAP-
acceptable alternatives for this end-use category include lower-GWP
options such as ``ammonia vapor compression with secondary loop, carbon
dioxide, R-290, R-441A, R-450A, R-513A, and isobutane'' and stated that
``[s]everal companies are already producing and selling compliant
products that use already-approved, low-GWP refrigerants'' without
identifying those companies.
Response: EPA agrees there is a variety of equipment using other
acceptable alternatives with lower GWPs in medium temperature stand-
alone equipment and therefore did not propose to list the three
refrigerants as acceptable but instead included a narrowed use limit to
address specific circumstances that would render the other refrigerants
as technically infeasible in particular applications within this end
use. EPA is aware of such equipment using R-290, R-600a (isobutane),
and R-744 (carbon dioxide). We also noted in the 2015 Rule that R-450A
and R-513A were designed as HFC-134a replacements and therefore were
potentially available for medium temperature stand-alone units that
previously relied on HFC-134a. (We are not aware of a refrigerant being
designated R-513C as noted by EIA and believe it may have been a
typographical error for R-513A; regardless R-513C is not listed
acceptable for this end-use category.) EPA also pointed to examples of
medium temperature stand-alone equipment using lower-GWP refrigerants
in our proposed rule. We further note that even manufacturers that do
offer such equipment using the available alternatives may find such
alternatives technically infeasible for some applications. Other
information in the record elaborates on the limitations of the other
acceptable alternatives in certain circumstances. For instance, in its
comments on the 2020 NPRM, Hussmann Corporation stated ``[f]lammable
and non-flammable refrigerant options currently approved by SNAP have
less capacity and may require the use of multiple condensing units.
This in turn creates additional heat rejection into stores, an increase
in noise, store infrastructure issues that don't have the capacity for
the electrical loads, increased design feasibility risks for the stand-
alone units due to increased piping, and increased
[[Page 24454]]
difficulty for servicing. Other refrigerant options may also require
redesign due to the larger sizes of the condensing units which will
limit the equipment installation due to narrow aisle and doorway
openings.'' Accordingly, EPA concludes that the fact that other lower
GWP refrigerants are listed as acceptable under SNAP for this end use
does not mean that it should not list R-448A, R-449A and R-449B as
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.
ii. Adoption of Safety Standard UL 60335-2-89 2nd Ed.
Comment: EIA notes that a proposal to modify UL 60335-2-89 is being
considered. The proposal would allow up to 500 grams of R-290, or 13
times the lower flammability limit (LFL) of other A3 refrigerants such
as R-600a. EIA expects the revision to be complete in March 2021 and
urges EPA to adopt it when available. EIA expects that adoption by EPA
would further limit any need for R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B as it would
allow feasible designs, e.g., requiring a single refrigeration circuit
as opposed to a physically larger multi-circuit approach, over a
broader range of equipment. With respect to the listing of R-448A, R-
449A, and R-449B under narrowed use limits, NRDC agreed that ``EPA
should revisit this approval upon adoption of safety standard UL 60335-
2-89 2nd Ed. which will make it simpler to design compliant products
with low-GWP refrigerants.'' Further, NRDC maintained that any
rulemaking listing R-448A, R-449A or R-449B should only apply ``until
products can be designed and sold to the specifications of the new UL
standard.''
Response: EPA acknowledges the ongoing process to update on UL
60335-2-89. We also note that revisions to this standard were released
for public comment in December 2020. As EIA notes, if we were to change
use conditions that currently exist for R-290, R-600a and R-441A in
stand-alone equipment (both medium and low temperature), we would
undertake a rulemaking to do so. We cannot predict if or when we would
do so before that standard is finalized and we can evaluate it to
assess whether a change in use conditions is warranted; therefore, we
have not limited the time that the listing of R-448A, R-449A, and R-
449B applies as NRDC suggests. That said, manufacturers availing
themselves of the flexibilities offered by these SNAP listings subject
to narrowed use limits could assess the status of this UL Standard and
the possibility of adoption by EPA as part of their analyses that
require an anticipated date other substitutes would be available and a
projected time for switching.
d. Narrowed Use Limits Description
i. Narrowed Use Limits Should Be Temporary
Comment: AHRI requested that R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B be listed
as acceptable without narrowed use limits but felt that was only needed
``until additional alternatives become available.''
Response: To the extent that this comment suggests that R-448A, R-
449A, and R-449B may not be needed in the future, EPA agrees. Even if
the current acceptable refrigerants are not currently feasible in this
equipment, additional alternatives being investigated, if added to the
list of acceptable substitutes, may take the place of these high-GWP
blends. As explained above, should additional alternatives become
available in the future, or use conditions of existing alternatives
change in the future, a manufacturer using R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B
under the narrowed use limit may need to consider the implications of
such a change for its future use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B under the
narrowed use limits for new medium temperature stand-alone equipment.
ii. Scope of Narrowed Use Limits
Comment: NAFEM stated that the proposal to list R-448A, R-449A, and
R-449B as acceptable subject to narrowed use limits ``is too narrowly
defined and there should be other circumstances under which these
refrigerants can be used for medium temperature applications.'' NAFEM
pointed out that their member companies produce a wide range of
equipment types and held that some of these do not fit neatly into
EPA's end-use category of medium temperature stand-alone equipment and
requested ``EPA to expand the product uses in which R-448A, R-449A, and
R-449B may be used.'' NRDC however felt that should EPA list these
refrigerants acceptable subject to narrowed use limits--which NRDC did
not support--EPA should limit the listing ``to only specific product
subtypes for which no alternatives are currently or potentially
available.''
Response: EPA has previously listed R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as
acceptable under several end-uses, some of which may operate at medium
temperature, including supermarket systems, refrigerated transport,
cold storage, refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment,
and others. We expect that some NAFEM members manufacture equipment
under these end-uses; however, the comment is unclear as to whether
NAFEM is requesting EPA ``to expand the product uses'' for these other
end-uses where R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B are already listed as
acceptable. To the extent NAFEM is referring to a broader list of
circumstances in medium-temperature stand-alone equipment only, the
specific types of such equipment were not defined, and thus EPA cannot
judge whether they fit in the subject end-use category or another end-
use or if the end-use category might be further broken down into
separate end-use subcategories. Accordingly, EPA is not expanding the
product uses in which R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B may be used in this
final rule. Likewise, NRDC did not specifically list the product
subtypes in their comments, except to mention that more equipment could
feasibly use lower GWP refrigerants in the future should EPA adopt
revised use conditions for certain acceptable refrigerants based on a
UL standard under development. Because information was not presented
that would allow EPA to distinguish the product types within the
medium-temperature stand-alone equipment end-use category that are and
are not feasible with the acceptable alternatives, EPA is not limiting
or expanding the narrowed use limits beyond new medium-temperature
stand-alone equipment as proposed. As discussed in other responses,
should additional alternatives be listed in this end-use category, a
manufacturer utilizing R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B under the narrowed use
limits may need to consider the implications of such a change for its
future use of R-448A, R-449A, or R-449B under the narrowed use limits
for new medium temperature stand-alone equipment.
iii. Routinely Submit Narrowed Use Limits Information
Comment: Notwithstanding their argument against the listing, NRDC
urged that if R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B were listed for this
equipment, EPA should ``require that users of these three blends
actively and periodically submit to EPA the specified required
information under the narrowed use limits.''
Response: Regulations for listing alternatives subject to narrowed
use limits were established in the original SNAP rule (59 FR 13044,
March 18, 1994) and were not reopened in the 2020 NPRM. The 1994 final
regulations do not require or provide for users to submit their
analysis, except when requested to demonstrate compliance.
[[Page 24455]]
To the extent the comment is suggesting that EPA should add a separate
submission requirement for this particular listing, EPA is not
establishing such a requirement because doing so would be inconsistent
with the requirements of narrowed use limits that have existed for 27
years and as indicated in this document and the proposal, EPA's
intention is to maintain consistency with those existing requirements.
If EPA decides in the future that additional reporting may be needed
under narrowed use limits, either in general or for specific
alternatives so listed, we can consider any relevant changes and if any
revisions to this final rule should be proposed.
e. Approve for Retrofits
Comment: Chemours requests that the Agency list R-448A, R-449A, and
R-449B as acceptable for retrofits of medium temperature stand-alone
equipment.
Response: EPA has consistently viewed refrigerant listings for new
equipment and for retrofitting existing equipment separately, as the
overall risk to human health and the environment differs depending on
whether equipment is newly manufactured (for this equipment, in a
factory environment) compared to retrofitted (e.g., in the field or at
a service center). We appreciate Chemours' comments; however, we did
not propose the use of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B in retrofits. There
is not enough information in the record to make a determination for
retrofits of this equipment in this rule, but we will take the
suggestion under advisement for potential future listings.
f. Request for Cost-Benefit Analysis
Comment: NAFEM ``encourages EPA to consider a benefit-cost analysis
before finalizing this rulemaking.''
Response: The listing of R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B as acceptable
subject to narrowed use limits imposes no costs compared to the
previous state where such refrigerants were not listed as acceptable
for the subject end-use category. Instead, this final rule allows these
three refrigerants to be used in instances where they were not allowed
before and thus provides additional flexibilities under SNAP that
manufacturers may choose to pursue. While there may be costs borne by
those pursuing these refrigerants, it is a manufacturer's decision
whether to pursue these alternatives and not a requirement that EPA is
imposing on the manufacturer.
B. Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps--
Listing of R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, and R-457A as Acceptable,
Subject to Use Conditions, for Use in Residential and Light Commercial
Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps End-Use for New Equipment; and R-32 as
Acceptable, Subject to Use Conditions, for Use in Residential and Light
Commercial Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps--Equipment Other Than Self-
Contained Room Air Conditioners for New Equipment
As proposed, EPA is listing R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, and R-
457A (hereafter called ``the five refrigerant blends'') as acceptable
subject to use conditions as substitutes in residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps for both self-contained and
split systems, and R-32 as acceptable subject to use conditions in
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps for
split systems and for specific types of self-contained systems that are
part of the residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pump end-use but for which R-32 has not been previously listed.
We note references to hydrocarbons mistakenly included in the
``Further information'' column of the regulatory text in the 2020 NPRM
are not included in this final rule. Also, in the 2020 NPRM we used the
term ``mildly flammable'' in the ``Further information'' column of the
regulatory text. Based on comments received, we have changed that term
to ``flammable.'' \20\ Finally, we note that where the use requirement
for red markings appeared in regulatory text of the 2020 NRPM, we
indicated initially that it must be applied to ``pipes, hoses, or other
devices through which the refrigerant passes.'' In this final action we
are adding ``service ports'' there to be consistent with the sentence
that follows. We offer clarification on this requirement below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the NPRM, EPA used the term ``mildly flammable'' to
describe A2L refrigerants. Based on comment as explained below, this
is not the correct term used in ASHRAE Standard 34 and hence it has
been revised throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What use conditions is EPA finalizing?
EPA is finalizing the use conditions as proposed, except for a
revision, explained in subsections II.B.1.b and II.B.5.a below, to what
constitutes ``new'' equipment. The use conditions were proposed and are
finalized as a means to reduce the risk that exists when using
flammable refrigerants. EPA has adopted similar use conditions in the
past when listing flammable refrigerants acceptable, including the
listing of HFC-32 for some of the equipment types that are included in
the listing of the five refrigerant blends in this final rule (e.g., 76
FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). Further
discussion of these use conditions is in section 5 below.
Under this listing, use of these refrigerants under the SNAP
program requires adhering to all of the following use conditions:
a. UL Standard
These refrigerants may be used only in AC equipment, both self-
contained equipment and split-systems, that meet all requirements
listed in the 3rd edition, dated November 1, 2019, of UL Standard
60335-2-40, ``Standard for Safety for Household And Similar Electrical
Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical
Heat Pumps, Air Conditioners and Dehumidifiers'' (UL Standard).\21\ The
UL Standard contains requirements for the types of equipment covered
here, including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space
requirements, and certain hazard warnings and markings, among other
topics. In cases where this final rule includes requirements more
stringent than those of UL Standard 60335-2-40, the appliance will need
to meet the requirements of this final rule in place of the
requirements in the UL Standard. See section II.B.5 below for further
discussion on the requirements of this UL Standard that EPA is
incorporating by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ All references to UL Standard 60335-2-40 are to the third
edition unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA finds, as in past rules, that it is appropriate to reference
consensus standards that set conditions to reduce risk. As in past
listings of flammable refrigerants, we find that such standards have
already gone through a development phase that incorporates the latest
findings and research. Likewise, such standards have gone through a
vetting and refinement process that provides the affected parties an
opportunity to comment. For the U.S. stationary air conditioning and
refrigeration industry, EPA sees UL standards in general as a
pervasively used body of work to address risks and these standards are
the most applicable and recognized by the U.S. market. Most, and likely
nearly all, covered equipment in the U.S. is listed as complying with
the appropriate UL standard. In this case, UL 60335-2-40 covers, with
modifications, equipment
[[Page 24456]]
also covered by other UL standards previously finalized and
incorporates the works of international standards setting bodies;
specifically, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
standard IEC 60335-2-40 was used in the development of UL 60335-2-40.
b. New Equipment Only
These refrigerants are being listed under SNAP only for use in new
equipment designed specifically and clearly identified for the
refrigerant; i.e., none of these substitutes are being listed for use
as a conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant for existing equipment. In
the 2020 NPRM, we stated in a footnote that we intended ``new''
equipment to include a new compressor, evaporator, condenser and
refrigerant tubing (85 FR 35884). Based on consideration of public
comments on the 2020 NPRM, we conclude that existing tubing can be
inspected and if suitable re-used and the system would still be
considered ``new'' for the purpose of this final rule.
Given the possible ignition sources that exist in equipment
designed for non-flammable refrigerants, EPA finds that retrofitting
such equipment to use flammable refrigerants presents additional risks
not adequately addressed by this standard. This position is widely
supported by the comments as described below.
c. Warning Labels
The following markings, or the equivalent, must be provided in
letters no less than 6.4 mm (\1/4\ inch) high and must be permanent:
i. On the outside of the air conditioning equipment: ``WARNING--
Risk of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant Used. To Be Repaired Only By
Trained Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture Refrigerant Tubing''
ii. On the outside of the air conditioning equipment: ``WARNING--
Risk of Fire. Dispose of Properly In Accordance With Federal Or Local
Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant Used''
iii. On the inside of the air conditioning equipment near the
compressor: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant Used.
Consult Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before Attempting to Service This
Product. All Safety Precautions Must be Followed''
iv. For any equipment pre-charged at the factory, on the equipment
packaging: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire due to Flammable Refrigerant Used.
Follow Handling Instructions Carefully in Compliance with National
Regulations''
v. On the indoor unit \22\ near the nameplate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This labeling is required for split systems and self-
contained equipment alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) At the top of the marking: ``Minimum Installation height, X m
(W ft)''. This marking is only required if the similar marking is
required by the UL Standard. The terms ``X'' and ``W'' shall be
replaced by the numeric height as calculated per the UL Standard. Note
that the formatting here is slightly different than the UL Standard;
specifically, the height in Inch-Pound units is placed in parentheses
and the word ``and'' has been replaced by the opening parenthesis.
(b) Immediately below the warning label indicated in (a) above or
at the top of the marking if (a) is not required: ``Minimum room area
(operating or storage), Y m\2\ (Z ft\2\)''. The terms ``Y'' and ``Z''
shall be replaced by the numeric area as calculated per the UL
Standard. Note that the formatting here is slightly different than the
UL Standard; specifically, the area in Inch-Pound units is placed in
parentheses and the word ``and'' has been replaced by the opening
parenthesis.
vi. For non-fixed equipment, including portable air conditioners,
window air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps, on the outside of the product:
``WARNING--Risk of Fire or Explosion--Store in a well-ventilated room
without continuously operating flames or other potential ignition.''
vii. For fixed equipment, including rooftop units and split air
conditioners, ``WARNING--Risk of Fire--Auxiliary devices which may be
ignition sources shall not be installed in the ductwork, other than
auxiliary devices listed for use with the specific appliance. See
instructions.''
The text of these labels is nearly identical to those in UL 60335-
2-40, with slight modifications noted above. We highlight this
difference above and repeat those labels whose text we have not changed
here to emphasize the importance of including such labels and to
provide the labels we are requiring in a single place. We find labels
as one of two marking conventions (the other being red markings as
explained in section II.B.1.d below) that combined will provide
adequate warning of the presence of a flammable refrigerant to those
who may come into contact with it in potentially dangerous quantities
and situations (i.e., in concentrations above the LFL and in the
presence of an ignition source).
EPA believes that it would be difficult to see warning labels with
the minimum lettering height requirement of \1/8\ inch provided in the
UL Standard. Therefore, consistent with the use conditions in our
previous rules listing flammable refrigerants, including HFC-32,
acceptable subject ot use conditions (e.g., 76 FR 78832, December 20,
2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015), 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.
d. Markings
Equipment must have distinguishing red (Pantone[supreg] Matching
System (PMS) #185 or RAL 3020) color-coded hoses and piping to indicate
use of a flammable refrigerant. The air conditioning equipment shall
have marked service ports, pipes, hoses and other devices through which
the equipment's refrigerant circuit is serviced. Markings shall extend
at least 1 inch (25mm) and shall be replaced if removed. As noted in
comments below, there were some questions of what this use condition
requires; EPA clarifies this requirement as follows. For equipment that
contain field-constructed parts (i.e., finished at the site where the
installation occurs), the connections to be finished in the field shall
be marked red as described. For equipment with service ports, the
service ports and/or piping extending therefrom shall be marked red as
described. We note equipment might fit both categories above and hence
must have both sets of red markings. For self-contained equipment
without service ports, the location the manufacturer recommends as the
place to access the refrigerant circuit (e.g., process tube) shall be
marked red as described.
[[Page 24457]]
The reason to include red markings in combination with warning
labels is noted above. EPA finds that when combined with labels, such
markings will provide adequate warning of the presence of a flammable
refrigerant to those who may come into contact with it in potentially
dangerous quantities and situations (i.e., in concentrations above the
LFL and in the presence of an ignition source). As in previous
rulemakings on flammable refrigerants cited above, we conclude that the
red markings will provide an additional warning for technicians,
consumers, retail storeowners, first responders, and those disposing
the appliance to understand that a flammable refrigerant is used and
appropriate caution should be taken. Furthermore, the red markings, as
with symbols required by the UL Standard, provide a more universally-
understood warning demarcation, which would be useful for those who may
not be able to read or understand the English language labels.
The regulatory text of our decisions for the end-uses discussed
above appears in tables at the end of this document. This text will be
codified in appendix W of 40 CFR part 82 subpart G. EPA notes that
there may be other legal obligations pertaining to the manufacture,
use, handling, and disposal of the refrigerants that are not included
in the information listed in the tables (e.g., the CAA section
608(c)(2) prohibition on knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly
releasing or disposing of substitute refrigerants in the course of
maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing of an appliance or
industrial process refrigeration, or Department of Transportation
requirements for transport of flammable gases). Flammable refrigerants
being recovered or otherwise disposed of from residential and light
commercial air conditioning appliances are likely to be hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (see 40 CFR
parts 260-270).
2. Background on Residential and Light Commercial Air Conditioning and
Heat Pumps (New)
The residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps end-use includes equipment for cooling air in individual rooms,
in single-family homes, and in small commercial buildings. This end-use
includes both self-contained and split systems. For further background
on this end-use, see the 2020 NPRM (85 FR 35881-35882).
3. What are the ASHRAE classifications for refrigerant flammability?
The six refrigerants that we are listing in this final rule for
residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps are all assigned a
safety group classification of ``A2L'' by The American National
Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 34-2019. ASHRAE
classifies Class A refrigerants as refrigerants for which toxicity has
not been identified at concentrations less than or equal to 400 ppm by
volume, based on data used to determine threshold limit value-time-
weighted average (TLV-TWA) or consistent indices. The flammability
classification ``2L'' is given to refrigerants that, when tested,
exhibit flame propagation, have a heat of combustion less than 19,000
kJ/kg (8,169 BTU/lb), have an LFL greater than 0.10 kg/m\3\, and have a
maximum burning velocity of 10 cm/s or lower when tested in dry air at
73.4 [deg]F (23.0 [deg]C) and 14.7 psia (101.3 kPa). ASHRAE Standard
34-2019 requires testing at that temperature to determine if flame
propagation exists and if not, tests at 140 [deg]F (60 [deg]C) are
conducted to determine the refrigerant flammability classification. For
further information on the ASHRAE safety group classifications, see the
2020 NPRM at 85 FR 35882.
4. What are R-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C and R-457A and how do
they compare to other refrigerants in the same end-use?
R-32 is a refrigerant with lower flammability, and the five
refrigerant blends are refrigerant blends with lower flammability, all
with an ASHRAE safety classification of A2L. The respective CAS Reg.
Nos. of R-32 and the components of the five refrigerant blends are
listed below.
R-32 is also known as HFC-32 or difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-
10-5). EPA previously listed R-32 as an acceptable refrigerant for some
types of residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat
pumps end-use categories, specifically self-contained room air
conditioners such as window units, packaged terminal air conditioners
(PTACs), packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), portable room AC, and
wall-mounted AC (80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). As noted in the 2020
NPRM, this action adds a listing for this substitute to include rooftop
units, ground-source heat pump (GSHPs) and water-source heat pump
(WSHPs), which are typically self-contained but not sized for a single
room, and various types of split systems.
R-452B, also known by the trade name ``OpteonTM XL 55,''
and also known as ``Solstice[supreg] L41y,'' is a blend with lower
flammability consisting of 67 percent by weight HFC-32; seven percent
HFC-125, also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-
33-6); and 26 percent HFO-1234yf, also known as 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). R-454A, also known by
the trade name ``OpteonTM XL 40,'' is a blend with lower
flammability consisting of 35 percent HFC-32 and 65 percent HFO-1234yf.
R-454B, also known by the trade names ``OpteonTM XL 41'' and
``Puron AdvanceTM,'' is a blend with lower flammability
consisting of 68.9 percent HFC-32 and 31.1 percent HFO-1234yf. R-454C,
also known by the trade name ``OpteonTM XL 20,'' is a blend
with lower flammability consisting of 21.5 percent HFC-32 and 78.5
percent HFO-1234yf. R-457A, also known by the trade name
``Forane[supreg] 457A,'' is a blend with lower flammability consisting
of 70 percent HFO-1234yf, 18 percent HFC-32, and 12 percent HFC-152a,
which is also known as ethane, 1,1-difluoro (CAS Reg. No. 75-37-6).
Redacted submissions and supporting documentation for R-32 and the
five refrigerant blends are provided in the docket for this rule (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0698) at https://www.regulations.gov. EPA performed an
assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of each of
these substitutes, and these assessments are also available in the
docket for this rule.23 24 25 26 27 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ICF, 2020d. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: HFC-32.
\24\ ICF, 2020e. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-452B.
\25\ ICF, 2020f. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454A.
\26\ ICF, 2020g. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454B.
\27\ ICF, 2020h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454C.
\28\ ICF, 2020i. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and
Light Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-457A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental information: R-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C and
R-457A have ODPs of zero.
[[Page 24458]]
R-32 has a GWP of 675. The five refrigerant blends are made up of
the components HFC-32, HFC-125, HFO-1234yf and HFC-152a, which have
GWPs of 675, 3,500, less than one to four, and 124,
respectively.\29\ \30\ \31\ \32\ If
these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-452B, R-454A, R-
454B, R-454C and R-457A have GWPs of about 700, 240, 470, 150 and 140
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Unless otherwise specified, GWP values are from 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. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom 996
pp.
\30\ Nielsen et al., 2007. Nielsen, O.J., Javadi, M.S., Sulbaek
Andersen, M.P., Hurley, M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R. 2007.
Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics
and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals,
and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22. Available
online at http://www.cogci.dk/network/OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
\31\ Hodnebrog [Oslash]. et al., 2013. Hodnebrog [Oslash].,
Etminan, M., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Marston, G., Myhre, G., Nielsen,
C.J., Shine, K.P., Wallington, T.J.: Global Warming Potentials and
Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A
Comprehensive Review, Reviews of Geophysics, 51, 300-378,
doi:10.1002/rog.20013, 2013.
\32\ WMO (World Meteorological Organization), Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and
Monitoring Project-- Report No. 58, 588 pp., Geneva, Switzerland,
2018. Available at: https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/SAP-2018-Assessment-report.pdf. In this action, the 100-year GWP
values are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC-32 (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5), HFC-125 (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6),
HFC-152a (CAS Reg. No. 75-37-6), and HFO-1234yf (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-
1)--the components of the five refrigerant blends--are excluded 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.
Knowingly venting or otherwise knowingly releasing or disposing of
these refrigerants in the course of maintaining, servicing, repairing
or disposing of an appliance or industrial process refrigeration is
prohibited as provided in section 608(c)(2) of the CAA and EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).
Flammability information: R-32 and the five refrigerant blends are
designated under ASHRAE flammability classification of 2L, which is a
classification for refrigerants also referred to as ``lower
flammability'' (i.e., lower than those designated as 2 or 3) in ASHRAE
Standard 34-2019. See section 3 above for information on ASHRAE
classifications.
Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to
these substitutes include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitutes may
also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high
concentrations, the substitutes may cause irregular heartbeat. The
substitutes could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a
confined space. These potential health effects are common to many
refrigerants.
ASHRAE Standard 34-2019 classifies HFC-32 and the five refrigerant
blends under the toxicity classification A (``lower toxicity''). The
AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32 and
the component refrigerants HFC-125 and HFC-152a; the AIHA has
established a WEEL of 500 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFO-1234yf. The
manufacturer of R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, and R-454C recommends AELs,
respectively, of 874, 690, 854, and 615 ppm on an 8-hr TWA for these
blends. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEEL
and manufacturers' AELs and address potential health risks by following
requirements and recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS, in ASHRAE
Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration
and air conditioning industry.
Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-32 and the five
refrigerant blends all have an ODP of zero, the same as other
acceptable substitutes in this end-use.
R-32 and the five refrigerant blends' GWPs, ranging from about 140
to about 700, are higher than some of the acceptable substitutes for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps,
including ammonia absorption, R-290, and R-441A with GWPs ranging from
zero to three. R-32 and the five refrigerant blends' GWPs are lower
than some of the acceptable substitutes for residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps, such as HFC-134a, R-410A,
and R-507A with GWPs of 1,430, 2,087.5 and 3,985 respectively.
Information regarding the toxicity of other available alternatives
are provided in the listing decisions previously made (see https://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-air-conditioning-and-heat-pumps). Toxicity risks for R-32 and the five
refrigerant blends are comparable to or lower than toxicity risks of
other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be
minimized by use consistent with ASHRAE 15 and other industry
standards, recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS, and other safety
precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.
Although flammability risk may be greater than flammability risks
of other available substitutes in the same end-use, this risk can be
minimized by use consistent with ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards
such as UL 60335-2-40, recommendations in the manufacturers' SDS, and
other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry. The use conditions reduce the potential risk
associated with the flammability of these alternatives so that they
will not pose significantly greater risk than other acceptable
substitutes in this end-use.
5. Why is EPA finalizing these specific use conditions?
As finalized, the use conditions in this SNAP listing include: Use
only in new equipment, which can be specifically designed for the
refrigerant; use consistent with the UL 60335-2-40 industry standard,
including testing, charge sizes, ventilation, usage space requirements,
and certain hazard warnings and markings; and warnings and markings on
equipment to inform consumers and technicians of potential flammability
hazards. Each of these is described in greater detail below. The
listings with specific use conditions are intended to allow for the use
of these refrigerants with lower flammability in a manner that will
ensure they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the
environment than other substitutes in this end-use.
a. New Equipment Only; Not Intended for Use as a Retrofit Alternative
Under this listing, these refrigerants may be used under the SNAP
program only in new equipment \33\ designed to address concerns unique
to flammable refrigerants--i.e., this listing does not allow these
substitutes to be used as a conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant for
existing equipment. These 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 if these flammable
refrigerants were to be used in equipment that was designed for non-
flammable refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This is intended to mean a completely new refrigeration
circuit containing a new compressor, evaporator, and condenser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. UL Standard
Under this listing, the flammable refrigerants may be used under
the SNAP program only in equipment that meets all requirements in UL
Standard
[[Page 24459]]
60335-2-40, Edition 3 for air conditioning equipment. This UL Standard
indicates that refrigerant charges greater than a specific amount
(called ``m3'' in the UL Standard and based on the
refrigerant's LFL) are beyond its scope and that national standards
might apply, such as for instance ANSI/ASHRAE 15-2019.
Those participating in the UL 60335-2-40 consensus standards
process (hereafter ``UL'') have tested equipment for flammability risk
in residential applications and evaluated the relevant scientific
studies. Further, UL has developed safety standards including
requirements for construction and system design, for markings, and for
performance tests concerning refrigerant leakage, ignition of switching
components, surface temperature of parts, and component strength after
being scratched. Certain aspects of system construction and design,
including charge size, ventilation, and installation space, and greater
detail on markings, are discussed further below in this section. The UL
Standard was developed in an open and consensus-based approach, with
the assistance of experts in the air conditioning industry as well as
experts involved in assessing the safety of products. While similar
standards exist from other bodies, such as the IEC, we are relying on a
specific UL standard because it is the most applicable and recognized
by the U.S. market. This approach is the same as that in previous rules
on flammable refrigerants (e.g. 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR
19454, April 10, 2015).
A description of the requirements of UL 60335-2-40 as they affect
the refrigerants and end-use addressed in this section of our final
rule follows. This description is offered for information only and does
not provide a complete review of the requirements in this standard.
Under this SNAP listing, the refrigerant charge size for
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps is
limited in accordance with the UL Standard. EPA is requiring as a use
condition adherence to the standard; hence, charge size limits for each
of the refrigerants by equipment type in accordance with the UL
Standard apply to this SNAP listing. Annex GG of the standard provides
the charge limits, air circulation requirements and requirements for
secondary circuits. The standard specifies requirements for
installation space of an appliance (i.e., room floor area) and/or air
circulation or other requirements which are determined according to the
refrigerant charge used in the appliance, the installation location and
the type of air circulation of the location or of the appliance. In
some applications the introduction of outdoor air into a space, also
known as ventilation, is required. Within Annex GG, Table GG.1
describes how to apply the requirements to allow for safe use of
flammable refrigerants. The UL Standard contains provisions for safety
mitigation. These mitigation requirements were developed to ensure the
safe use of flammable refrigerants over a range of appliances. In
general, as larger charge sizes are used, more stringent mitigation
requirements are required. In certain applications refrigerant
detection systems (as described in Annex LL, Refrigerant detection
systems for A2L refrigerants) must be factory installed as part of the
equipment. Likewise, in some cases refrigerant sensors (as described in
Annex MM, Refrigerant sensor location confirmation tests) are required.
The standard does not require audible alarms in most cases and instead
relies on sensors/detectors to initiate a mitigation strategy such as
activating ``fan operation and air circulation or ventilation'' if
refrigerant concentrations are found to exceed certain thresholds.
Where mechanical ventilation (i.e., fans) is required in accordance
with Annex GG or Annex 101.DVG, it must be initiated by a separate
refrigerant detection system either as part of the appliance or
installed separately. In a room with no mechanical ventilation, Annex
GG provides requirements for openings to rooms based on several
factors, including the charge size and the room area. The minimum
opening is intended to be sufficient so that natural ventilation would
reduce the risk of using a flammable refrigerant. The standard also
includes specific requirements for split system appliances using A2L
refrigerants covering construction, instruction manuals, and allowable
charge sizes, mechanical ventilation, safety alarms, and, for variable
refrigerant flow (VRF) systems, shut off valves.
In addition to Annex GG and Table GG.1 mentioned above, UL 60335-2-
40 has a requirement for the maximum charge for an appliance using an
A2L refrigerant. If the appliance is a portable appliance, a non-fixed
factory-sealed single package, or a cord-connected appliance which may
be periodically or seasonally relocated (excluding servicing) by the
end user, there are no additional requirements for room area and air
circulation if the charge is sufficiently small--under three times the
LFL; however risk mitigation for labeling, ignition source controls and
other features are required. Additional requirements exist for charge
sizes exceeding three times the LFL.
i. Incorporation by Reference
Through this action, EPA is incorporating by reference the 2019 UL
Standard 60335-2-40, 3rd Edition, which establishes requirements for
the evaluation of electrical air conditioners, heat pumps, and
dehumidifiers, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. The standard is
discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this preamble. This approach
is the same as that used to incorporate the 8th edition of UL Standard
484 in our previous rule in which we listed R-32 as acceptable, subject
to use conditions, for use in self-contained room air conditioners for
residential and light commercial AC (80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015).
The 2019 UL Standard 60335-2-40, 3rd Edition, is available at
https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=36463, and
for purchase by mail at: Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL
60106; Email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in
the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial 1-415-352-2178); internet
address: https://www.shopulstandards.com. The cost of the 2019 UL
Standard 60335-2-40, 3rd Edition is $440 for an electronic copy and
$550 for hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the
Standards Certification Customer Library that allows unlimited access
to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this
standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment
manufacturers and purchase is not necessary for those selling,
installing, and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that
the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably
available.
c. Labeling
As a use condition, EPA is requiring labeling of residential and
light commercial air conditioning and heat pump equipment. EPA is
requiring the warning labels on the equipment contain letters at least
\1/4\ inch high. The label must be permanently affixed to the
equipment. Warning label language requirements are described in section
II.B.1.c of this rule as well as in the regulatory text. The warning
label language is similar to or exactly the same as that required in UL
60335-2-40.
d. Markings
Our understanding of the UL Standard is that red markings, similar
to
[[Page 24460]]
those EPA has applied as use conditions in past actions for flammable
refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10,
2015), are required by the UL Standard for A2 and A3 refrigerants but
not A2L refrigerants. The final use condition requires that such
markings apply to these A2L refrigerants as well to establish a common,
familiar and standard means of identifying the use of a flammable
refrigerant.
These red markings will help technicians immediately identify the
use of a flammable refrigerant, thereby potentially reducing the risk
of using sparking equipment or otherwise having an ignition source
nearby. The AC and refrigeration industry currently uses red-colored
hoses and piping as means for identifying the use of a flammable
refrigerant based on previous SNAP listings. 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 in SNAP listings, color-coded
hoses or pipes must be used for ethane, HFC-32, isobutane, propane, or
R-441A in certain types of equipment. All such SNAP listings indicate
that the tubing, hoses, etc. must be colored red PMS #185 or RAL 3020
to match the red band displayed on the container of flammable
refrigerants under the AHRI Guideline N, ``2016 Guideline for
Assignment of Refrigerant Container Colors.'' EPA is requiring red
markings in this SNAP final action to ensure that there is adequate
notice for technicians and others that a flammable refrigerant is being
used within a particular piece of equipment or appliance. These
requirements are also intended to provide adequate notification of the
presence of flammable refrigerants for personnel disposing of
appliances containing flammable refrigerants. Consistent with a
previous SNAP rule, one mechanism to distinguish hoses and pipes is to
add a colored plastic sleeve or cap to the service tube. (80 FR 19465,
April 10, 2015). The colored plastic sleeve or cap would have to be
forcibly removed in order to access the service tube. Likewise, red
tape adhered to or around the tube would meet the intent of this use
condition. These types of red markings would signal to 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 or were illegible or not understood (e.g., for non-
English speakers), and would provide similar notification to consumers,
retail store owners, building owners and operators, first responders,
and those disposing the appliance. This sleeve or other marking would
be of the same red color (PMS #185 or RAL 3020) and could also be
boldly marked with a graphic to indicate the refrigerant was flammable.
This could be a cost-effective alternative to painting or dyeing the
hose or pipe.
In this SNAP listing, EPA is requiring the use of color-coded
service ports, hoses or piping as a way for technicians and others to
recognize that a flammable refrigerant is used in the equipment. This
will be in addition to the use of warning labels discussed above. EPA
believes having two such warning methods is reasonable and consistent
with other general industry practices. This approach is the same as
that adopted in our previous rules on flammable refrigerants (e.g., 76
FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015).
6. What additional information is EPA including in these listings?
EPA is including recommendations, found in the ``Further
information'' column of the regulatory text at the end of this
document, to inform personnel of other practices to protect them from
the risks of using flammable refrigerants. Similar to our previous
listing of flammable refrigerants for this end-use (80 FR 19454, April
10, 2015), EPA is including information on the OSHA requirements at 29
CFR part 1910, proper ventilation, personal protective equipment, fire
extinguishers, use of spark-proof tools and equipment designed for
flammable refrigerants, and training.
Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory
decision, these statements are not binding for the use of the
substitutes under the SNAP program. However, the information so listed
may be binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection
regulations promulgated by OSHA). The ``Further information''
identified in the listing does not necessarily include all other legal
obligations pertaining to the use of the substitutes. While the items
listed would not be 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 result in the user making significant changes in existing
operating practices.
EPA notes that Annex HH of UL 60335-2-40, Competence of service
personnel, provides guidelines for service personnel to ensure they
receive training specifically to address potential risks of servicing
equipment using flammable refrigerants. Annex HH provides
recommendations that such training cover several aspects relevant to
flammable refrigerants including recognition of ignition sources,
information about refrigerant detectors, and other safety concepts. The
training information recommended in Annex HH would address the proper
working procedures for equipment commissioning, maintenance, repair,
decommissioning and disposal. The Agency notes that this section of the
UL Standard is described as informational, rather than ``normative,''
i.e., it is intended to provide information but not to be an absolute
requirement under the UL standard. Because Annex HH is informative,
rather than normative, it is not a requirement of the UL Standard and
following it is not required under the use conditions finalized in this
action. Nonetheless, EPA is providing as ``Further information'' some
information on training, including a recommendation that personnel
follow Annex HH.
7. How is EPA responding to comments on residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps?
EPA received several comments from organizations with various
interests in residential and light commercial AC. Most commenters
supported the proposed listing decision in general. Major topics raised
by commenters included the proposed use conditions, industry standards,
and training for technicians. Other comments unrelated to these
listings and beyond the scope of this final action are addressed in
section III below.
Commenters included AHRI, Air Conditioning Contractors of America
(ACCA), the Alliance, and HARDI, four industry organizations; Chemours
and Honeywell, two chemical producers; Carrier, Daikin, Johnson
Controls, Lennox International Inc., the Sporlan division of Parker
Hannifin Corporation (Sporlan), Rheem Manufacturing Company, and Trane
Technologies (Trane), seven equipment manufacturers; and two
environmental organizations, NRDC and EIA.
We have grouped comments together and responded to the issues
raised by the comments in the sections that follow.
[[Page 24461]]
a. Substitutes and End-Use Proposed
Comment: Several commenters voiced general support for the proposed
listing of HFC-32, R-452A, R-454A, R-454B, R-454C, and R-457A as
acceptable subject to use conditions in residential and light
commercial air conditioning and heat pumps. Chemours likewise supported
the proposal. Daikin voiced strong support and encouraged EPA to
approve HFC-32 quickly, noting that ``[o]ver 100 million R-32 split
system air conditioners have been sold since 2012'' and provided a list
showcasing their and other manufactures' implementation of air
conditioning products using A2L refrigerants in other countries. HARDI
supported these listings as ``one part of a larger process in the
industry's effort to phase down older refrigerants.''
Response: EPA acknowledges these commenters' general support for
this proposed listing and appreciates the additional information
provided by Daikin on the use of HFC-32. We add to that information
that it has been reported that products using HFC-32 are operating in
over 90 countries.\34\ After considering all the public comments on
this proposal, we are finalizing this portion of the rule as proposed
with only a few modifications discussed elsewhere in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News, An
HVAC Technician's Guide to R-32, November 12, 2020. Available at
https://www.achrnews.com/articles/144053-an-hvac-technicians-guide-to-r-32?oly_enc_id=8731J4776701J6C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clarifications
Comment: AHRI suggested that rather than ``mildly flammable
refrigerants'' EPA use the term ``refrigerants with lower
flammability'' to remain consistent with ASHRAE classifications.
Response: EPA acknowledges this correction and has used the ``lower
flammability'' description for the A2L refrigerants in the preamble to
this final rule. In the ``Further information'' column of the
regulatory text in this final rule, we have used the term ``Flammable''
to replace the term ``Mildly flammable'' that was contained in the 2020
NPRM.
Comment: AHRI pointed out that EPA indicated class 2L flammability
is determined based on testing at 73.4 [deg]F (23.0 [deg]C). They noted
that ASHRAE Standard 34-2019 requires testing at that temperature to
determine if flame propagation exists and if not, tests at 140 [deg]F
(60 [deg]C) are conducted to determine the refrigerant flammability
classification.
Response: EPA acknowledges this clarification, which is
incorporated in the description of the ASHRAE standard testing
procedures to determine flammability classification in section II.B.3
above.
Comment: AHRI provided additional detail on requirements contained
in UL 60335-2-40 and stated that some of the summary information EPA
provided (85 FR 35884-34885, June 12, 2020) may be taken out of context
or be incorrect. For instance, they stated alarms might not be required
for most systems and if refrigerant concentrations are found to exceed
certain thresholds a mitigation strategy such as ``fan operation and
air circulation or ventilation'' would be activated; shut-off valves
are only an option for VRF systems; connected space requirements exist
for duct-free equipment but are not required for ducted systems with
sensors/detectors; mitigation requirements for labeling, ignition
source controls, and other features are required for portable
appliances with charge sizes less than three times the LFL; that
similar requirements exist for fixed appliances where the charge is
less than six times the LFL; that detectors are required to be factory
installed, qualified and listed with the product for equipment above a
charge size calculated per the standard; outdoor air ventilation is
required ``[o]nly in a few cases;'' and while Annex HH is informative
as EPA stated in the proposal, installation and service instructions
are required by the UL standard and that these instructions would
tailor Annex HH recommendations to the specific product. Carrier
pointed out that Annex DD of the standard, while also informative,
provides guidance on what information should be included in operation,
service and installation manuals.
Response: EPA acknowledges these clarifications and we agree with
the commenters' more detailed characterization of certain aspects of UL
Standard 60335-2-40. Our description in section II.B.5 above is offered
only for informational purposes and is not meant to be an exhaustive
summary of the standard. We emphasize that our use conditions are not
reliant on that informational description but rather adherence to the
actual requirements in the standard, which is incorporated by reference
in this rulemaking.
Comment: AHRI stated that the proposed rule would require the use
of spark-free equipment but states such tools ``are not required for
A2L refrigerants as these refrigerants have a high minimum ignition
energy and sparks from tools and even some electrical devices is not a
competent ignition source for an A2L refrigerant due to their higher
minimum ignition energies.''
Response: EPA noted in the proposal and reiterates in this final
rule that the information on spark-free tools is included in the
``Further information'' column of the regulatory text and so is not a
requirement of the rule. While we believe the use of spark-free tools
provides additional risk mitigation for technicians working with
flammable refrigerants, it was not proposed as a requirement and in
this final rule we maintain the recommendation in the ``Further
information'' column.
c. Use Conditions
i. Standards
Comment: Daikin supported EPA's reliance on UL Standard 60335-2-40
as a basis for listing as acceptable with a use condition requiring
adherence to that standard. NRDC, speaking in part about the UL
Standard, stated that ``EPA's approach of reviewing, adjusting as
needed, and then adopting these standards' safe use requirements is
sound.''
Response: EPA acknowledges Daikin's and NRDC's support for these
aspects of the proposed listing. After considering all the public
comments on this proposal, we are finalizing this listing, as described
in section II.B, including the use conditions related to UL 60335-2-40.
Comment: Pointing to ASHRAE 15-2019 and the third edition of UL
60335-2-40, Chemours stated that the ``[a]pplication and product
standards for the end-uses referenced in the proposed rule are
complete.'' AHRI stated that industry has proposed requirements to
reduce risk with A2L refrigerants in UL Standard 60335-2-40, ASHRAE
Standard 15, and ASHRAE Standard 15.2. They provided some examples of
these including air circulation as well as control of ignition sources
and hot surface temperatures. Trane stated EPA's use conditions should
be linked to the current and future versions of ASHRAE 15 and ASHRAE
15.2, the latter of which they expected to be published in early 2021.
They noted that these standards govern the installation, operation and
maintenance of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
systems using A2L refrigerants in commercial and residential
occupancies.
Response: EPA understands that other risk mitigation requirements
have been proposed by the standards project committee for ASHRAE 15 and
ASHRAE 15.2 and may be used by the HVAC industry, just as mitigation
requirements have already been
[[Page 24462]]
included in the UL Standard that is adopted as a use condition in these
final SNAP listings. Nonetheless, we find that these A2L refrigerants
can be used safely provided the use conditions in this rule are
followed, including compliance with the requirements of the UL
Standard. In certain clauses, the UL Standard requires compliance with
ASHRAE 15. We also note that other authorities might impose additional
requirements, such as adoption of ASHRAE 15 and 15.2 in building codes,
that would provide an additional layer of safety above what EPA is
requiring. If in the future EPA were to determine that additional
requirements are needed after this rulemaking to ensure safe use of the
refrigerants in the residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps
end-use, EPA could consider any relevant changes and if any revisions
to this final rule should be proposed.
Comment: The Alliance noted that the standard proposed to be
incorporated by reference, UL 60335-2-40, 3rd edition, will likely be
updated again. Daikin noted the standard is a ``continuous maintenance
standard'' supporting reference to the current edition. AHRI also
pointed out that ``new and updated standards will become more important
as standards sunset in the coming years.'' The Alliance expected the
fourth edition ``soon,'' and forecasted that most products manufactured
to this standard with the six A2L refrigerants would likely be
certified to that fourth edition. They asked that ``the UL 60355-2-40
[sic] standard update to include refrigerants that meet all the
requirements listed in the fourth edition as well.'' More generally
they asked that ``references to the standards be updated as new
editions become available for the products listed in SNAP Rule 23 and
other rules.'' Carrier also suggested EPA align with new safety
standards ``as new editions and future revisions become available'' and
Chemours offered similar suggestions. Sporlan and Trane suggested the
use condition reference the latest edition of the UL Standard, such
that the reference remains up to date. Sporlan suggested ``this use
condition be modified to reference the latest released edition of this
same standard, instead of tying Rule 23 exclusively to the 3rd
Edition.'' Trane noted that future editions of the UL Standard are
already underway and predicted the fourth edition would be complete
within two years (i.e., by July 27, 2022). Honeywell also supported
referencing a 4th edition and indicated that the process for writing
such would start in August 2020 and expected completion in 2021.
Honeywell asked EPA to wait until the 4th edition is published before
finalizing these listings of the A2L refrigerants and noted that the
3rd edition ``does not cover mitigation measures for external fires
caused by refrigerant leaks.'' AHRI also pointed out that there is an
ongoing effort to harmonize the relevant safety standards and
recommended that EPA update references to requirements for compliance
with product safety standards as new editions and revisions become
available. Referencing both the third and fourth edition of UL 60335-2-
40 as well as ASHRAE 15-2019 and the proposed ASHRAE 15.2, Johnson
Controls called for the acceptability listing of these A2L refrigerants
to be ``contingent upon the completion and harmonization of the
governing UL and ASHRAE standards for the safe design and application
of stationary air conditioning.'' Honeywell made a similar point,
referencing ASHRAE Standards 15 and 15.2, and suggested that these A2L
listings be delayed until this harmonization process was complete.
Response: EPA acknowledges the information on further developments
in the UL 60335-2-40 standard and ASHRAE standards processes. After
considering all the public comments on this proposal, we are finalizing
this listing, as described in section II.B. EPA is incorporating by
reference the 3rd edition of the UL standard (the existing version of
the standard). As addressed below, we conclude, and several commenters
agree, that this version adequately addresses the use of these A2L
refrigerants in the equipment proposed.
As we noted above, in certain cases the UL Standard refers to
ASHRAE 15-2019 for compliance. We are not, however, providing a use
condition based on one or more future editions of this standard, nor do
we feel it necessary or appropriate to rely on future standards and
harmonization efforts. Not only does EPA not know exactly what these
future standards may entail, those commenting on the proposed rule have
not had the opportunity to review those updates, as they have not yet
been finalized. Similarly, we do not find it necessary or appropriate
to wait for such actions to be finalized before taking this action. The
third edition of the UL Standard included extensive revisions
specifically to address flammability risks of A2L refrigerants and
reach industry-wide consensus. We further note that Chemours' comments
on the 2020 NPRM called finalization of this rule ``critical'' and
``timely'' and stated that with this final rule, the HVAC ``industry is
now well prepared to take this important step forward'' in the use of
lower-GWP--and lower overall risk to human health and the environment--
refrigerants in this end-use. If and when a 4th edition of the UL
Standard is released, EPA can consider any relevant changes and if any
revisions to this final rule should be proposed.
Further, as mentioned by AHRI and Daikin, the UL standards are
under continuous maintenance--as are ASHRAE Standards 15 and 15.2--and
hence may change again even after the mentioned editions are published.
Nonetheless, most commenters supported moving forward with the rule
using the third edition of the UL Standard. Daikin, for instance,
``endorses EPA's determination that this consensus safety standard
adequately protects against the reasonably foreseeable risks associated
with the use of R-32 in the applications being considered.'' Chemours
added that ``[a]pplication and product standards for the end-uses
referenced in the proposed rule are complete'' and that ``these updated
standards sufficiently address the risks associated with the use of A2L
solutions.'' EPA concludes that reliance on the current UL Standard and
our other use conditions allows applicable products to be used safely.
Regarding Honeywell's comment on external fires, we note that a
leak, even of a flammable refrigerant, does not ``cause'' a fire. It
would require an ignition source and a concentration of the refrigerant
higher than the lower flammability limit and below the higher
flammability limit. Requirements in the UL Standard mitigate the risk
of the equipment serving as an ignition source. As noted above, AHRI
pointed out that ``[f]or almost all applications air circulation will
be sufficient to dilute the refrigerant concentration in the event of a
catastrophic leak to below 25% of the LFL. Only in [a] rare case will
ventilation be used to introduce outside air.'' Further, the industry
is actively studying the behavior of A2L refrigerants (presuming a leak
does occur) in a structural fire. Should the results of this research
or other information lead in the future EPA to determine that
additional requirements are needed after this rulemaking to ensure safe
use of the refrigerants in the residential and light commercial AC and
heat pumps end-use, EPA could consider any relevant changes and if any
revisions to this final rule should be proposed.
We understand that the Alliance is asking EPA to modify the use
condition so that it requires adherence to the fourth edition once the
fourth edition
[[Page 24463]]
publishes, similar to suggestions from other commenters, and to also
consider revising the listing beyond the six refrigerants in this
rulemaking to others. If in the future an updated standard is
published, or the harmonization with other standards is completed, EPA
could consider any relevant changes and if any revisions to this final
rule should be proposed. In a similar manner, and through the normal
SNAP submission review, we can consider taking future action to list,
or propose to list with use conditions, other refrigerants if we were
to determine we had enough information to do so.
Comment: Honeywell predicted that ASHRAE Standard 15.2 would be
published in late 2021 or early 2022 and then adopted into model
building codes in 2024. They asked EPA to delay finalization of this
rule listing of A2L refrigerants until these actions occurred. They
stated that ``[c]urrent model mechanical and fire codes prohibit mildly
flammable refrigerants to be used in direct HVAC systems.''
Response: EPA has not participated in the revisions to the model
codes discussed by Honeywell, and we find that these SNAP listings can
be finalized before Honeywell's prediction that a proposed standard
would be adopted into such codes, consistent with how we have proceeded
with other listings in past SNAP actions that could be affected by
anticipated revisions to building codes. As noted both in the proposal
and above in this final rule, however, information listed in the
``Further information'' column of the listings might refer to ``sound
operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building codes or standards.'' (85 FR 35885, June 12,
2020). The listings in this final rule find certain refrigerants
acceptable and establishes EPA's use conditions, and do not require any
particular entity to use these refrigerants. Should other requirements
or standards also apply, such as building codes as Honeywell states,
other authorities would be responsible for ensuring such requirements
are addressed and enforced. We also note that some states are in the
process of updating their building code requirements to allow for
refrigerants with lower flammability (e.g., 2Ls), which will address
Honeywell's concern that such codes ``prohibit mildly flammable
refrigerants.'' Further, we are aware of the safe use of 2L
refrigerants in the end-uses covered by this rule in other countries.
While other states' building codes might currently prohibit use of
these refrigerants, the adoption by some states and the safe use
demonstrated gives support to listing these now. Further, we note that
regardless of the status of building codes, alternative means and
measures exist under which interested parties may present to the
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) evidence to demonstrate a similar
level of safety as provided under the existing building codes and
receive an exception to use an A2L refrigerant. For these reasons, the
Agency determines it is appropriate to finalize this final rule now. If
and when building codes are updated as indicated by the comment, EPA
can consider any relevant changes and if any revisions to this final
rule should be proposed.
Comment: Rheem asked EPA to ``[p]rovide revised guidance for charge
limits for R-32 refrigerant, currently defined in SNAP Notice 25 and
based on unit capacity, to be governed by the safety standards.''
Response: We believe Rheem is referring to SNAP Rule 19 (80 FR
19454, April 10, 2015) wherein EPA found HFC-32 acceptable, subject to
use conditions, for self-contained room air conditioners. One use
condition referenced parts of the August 3rd, 2012 version of UL
Standard 484, Edition 8 and another set charge size limits based on the
type of equipment (window unit, portable room AC, etc.) and cooling
capacity. In the proposal for this final rule we noted that we were not
proposing to revisit or modify the existing requirements from SNAP Rule
19, and consistent with that proposal, we are not finalizing changes to
these requirements. EPA understands that the standard we relied on in
Rule 19 might ``sunset'' in the future. Therefore, we will continue to
evaluate the market for the equipment addressed in that rule, including
HFC-32 in self-contained room air conditioners, and whether to
establish new or revised use conditions that reference UL 60335-2-40.
If in the future we wish to revise the existing requirements for HFC-32
self-contained room air conditioners, EPA could consider any relevant
changes and if any revisions to this final rule, or SNAP Rule 19,
should be proposed.
ii. New Equipment
Comment: AHRI, Carrier, Daikin, EIA, Honeywell, Johnson Controls
and Lennox strongly support the proposed use condition that these A2L
refrigerants may only be used in new equipment and not retrofits. AHRI
noted that ``refrigerants from a higher ASHRAE flammability
classification'' should not be used to retrofit existing equipment;
i.e., these A2L lower flammability refrigerants should not be used to
retrofit systems using A1 (``no flame propagation'') refrigerants, such
as R-410A. Carrier added that such a use condition continues EPA's
precedent from similar listings of flammable refrigerants that were
only listed for new equipment.
Response: EPA acknowledges these commenters' support of our
proposed use condition that finds these refrigerants acceptable for new
equipment and not for retrofits. After considering all the public
comments on this proposal, we are finalizing this listing, as described
in section II.B., including that use condition.
Comment: AHRI, Carrier, Chemours, Daikin, Johnson Controls, and
Rheem sought clarification on footnote 33 in the proposed rule, which
sought to distinguish a ``new'' system from a ``retrofitted'' system.
AHRI noted that since the inception of the International Building Codes
in the 1990s, nail strips have been required to be used to support
existing piping within 1.5 inches of a wall when a new system is
installed. AHRI also indicated that any ``[e]xisting external piping
must be pressure-tested, leak-checked and vacuum-checked per the safety
standards during the installation process,'' a point also noted by
Johnson Controls. Daikin pointed to provisions in UL Standard 60335-2-
40 that address situations where ``partial units'' (as defined in the
Standard) are installed without new refrigerant tubing between indoor
and outdoor components. They also noted that clause DD.3.1DV.2 of the
UL Standard provides mandatory requirements, including strength test,
leak tightness checks, and compliance with national and local codes,
for field-installed refrigerant tubing and as such tubing meeting those
conditions may be reused. Carrier stated that ``[l]ine sets, however,
have been safely re-used in the HVACR field for decades'' and noted
that equipment manufacturer installation instructions and standards,
such as UL 60335-2-40 and ASHRAE 15, allow for reuse of line sets
provided they meet requirements including ``line sizing, as well as
pressure and vacuum testing of the line sets to ensure they are free of
leaks.'' Chemours offered similar observations. Rheem asked that
``external field-erected line sets'' be excluded from the definition of
a new unit, observing that replacement of these should be left to the
AHJ such as a building code inspector. Carrier and Chemours offered
alternative language for the footnote and suggested providing such
guidance in appendix W of the proposed regulatory text where the
listing is provided. On the other hand,
[[Page 24464]]
Honeywell states that the definition of ``new system'' should require
the installation of new refrigerant piping, tubing or linesets and
later stated that ``the tubing must be replaced, or at least inspected
and reinforced to meet proposed requirements under ASHRAE 15.2.'' They
said that existing tubing was not likely to meet minimum safety
regulations. Trane said ``[b]asing the proposed use conditions on
ASHRAE 15 and ASHRAE 15.2 incorporates appropriate piping guidance and
avoids the potential of unnecessary and costly restrictions.''
Response: After consideration of these comments, EPA concludes that
the use of existing piping that is consistent with the use conditions
finalized--such as adherence to the UL 60335-2-40 Standard and the
inclusion of markings and labels as required--and the safety protocols
mentioned should not pose additional risk. We have clarified this in
section II.B.5.a and likewise in the text of the corresponding footnote
in section II.B.1.b of this final rule by not including ``refrigerant
tubing'' in the description of new equipment in this final action. As
such, existing piping does not need to be replaced for the equipment to
be considered ``new'' while a new compressor, evaporator, and condenser
are all required to be considered ``new.'' We believe this preamble
text sufficiently indicates our intention and so have not included
additional discussion in the regulatory text.
As noted by other comments, discussed elsewhere in this final rule,
the UL Standard 60335-2-40, which is incorporated by reference through
this rule, addresses the situations where existing tubing might be used
when installing a new system using a refrigerant in this rule.
Consistent with the use conditions established in this rule, EPA finds
that this standard provides appropriate criteria by which an installer
would decide when exiting tubing may be used or needs to be replaced.
Accordingly, EPA concludes it is not necessary or appropriate to define
a ``new'' system to require installation of new refrigerant piping,
tubing or linesets. If the existing tubing and linesets do not meet
existing regulations separate from the UL Standard and our other use
conditions, e.g. applicable building codes, other regulations or other
authorities may require installation of new refrigerant piping, tubing
or linesets. EPA also does not find it appropriate to adopt ``proposed
requirements,'' including those proposed in October for ASHRAE 15.2, as
those have not been finalized and neither commenters nor EPA can know
the future content of a standard for certain until it is finalized.
Comment: Carrier brought up the possibility that an outdoor
condensing unit using a non-flammable refrigerant (e.g., HCFC-22 or R-
410A) might illegally be replaced with one of the six refrigerants in
the listings in this final rule. Carrier urged EPA to work with the
industry concerning the replacement of all components, e.g. including
the indoor unit, as these instances will exhibit ``inspection and
enforcement challenges.''
Response: EPA notes that the final listings of these six
refrigerants require they be used in a new system, including the
replacement of the indoor unit of an existing HCFC-22 or R-410A system
when the corresponding outdoor unit is replaced. We support education
and training across the industry to improve awareness of and compliance
with the requirements of this final rule. EPA intends to continue to
work with industry towards these goals.
Comment: Carrier and Chemours sought clarification where EPA stated
in footnote 33 that the use condition for ``new equipment'' meant a
``completely new circuit.'' Chemours noted that a literal translation
of that might be to require that an entire system be replaced, even if
in the future a repair was being conducted on a system using one of the
six A2L refrigerants in this final rule.
Response: EPA acknowledges Carrier's and Chemours' comments
pointing out this potential misinterpretation of the use condition.
Under the use conditions finalized in this rule, EPA intends that once
systems using these A2L refrigerants are installed, technicians, using
proper safety procedures, may service the equipment similarly to
servicing current day equipment using A1 refrigerants. This intention
to allow servicing and not strand equipment prematurely is consistent
with prior SNAP decisions, as well as with approaches that we have
taken under other provisions of Title VI of the CAA to achieve a smooth
phaseout and transition to safer alternatives. Such service would
include replacing components including the condensing unit, and other
adjustments. In those cases where one of the heat exchangers needs
replacing, EPA recommends that outdoor units and indoor units be
properly matched, including for instance replacing a functioning indoor
A2L evaporator unit if warranted when the original A2L outdoor unit is
replaced with a higher-efficiency outdoor unit using that same A2L
refrigerant.
iii. Labels
Comment: AHRI, the Alliance, Carrier, Chemours, Daikin, Johnson
Controls, Lennox, and Rheem suggested that EPA rely on the labeling
requirements found in UL 60335-2-40, including the font size
requirement in the standard. Carrier held that the \1/8\-inch font size
specified in the standard is ``easily readable'' and further noted that
``visual icons and flammability symbols'' are required by the standard.
Lennox felt this size, which is half the size required in other EPA
listings (e.g., 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015), was justified given the
refrigerants proposed have lower flammability (A2L) whereas the
referenced listings were for higher flammability refrigerants (A3).
Chemours stated that using a larger font ``disproportionally emphasizes
flammability versus other safety aspects including electrical or
pressure requirements.'' Rheem said that diverging from the UL Standard
``adds unnecessary complexity'' and Johnson Controls held that ``[t]he
introduction of new, unique requirements could lead to confusion in the
field and thus increase safety risks.'' EIA, on the other hand,
``strongly supports the labelling requirements . . . outlined on the
proposed rulemaking.''
Response: As in other regulations promulgated under CAA section
612, EPA concludes that the proposed labeling requirement to use \1/4\-
inch fonts provides for an easier-to-read label than the \1/8\-inch
fonts in the standard; hence, the large font size provides an extra
layer of risk mitigation for technicians, consumers, retail store
owners, building owners and operators, first responders, and those
disposing of the equipment to readily understand the possibility that
the equipment contains a flammable refrigerant. Accordingly, EPA is
finalizing the larger text size as proposed.
The only differences to the actual text of the label between UL
60335-2-40 and the requirement proposed and finalized in this rule are
to the label(s) on the indoor unit, where for instance the minimum
installation height in meters (m) and feet (ft) is to be referred to in
the format ``X m (Y ft)'' rather than ``X m and Y ft'' as in the UL
Standard, with X and Y calculated per the standard (85 FR 35881, June
12, 2020). EPA believes the format is appropriate and would help avoid
possible confusion if an installer were to interpret the label as
called for in the UL Standard to mean X meters plus Y feet (i.e., 4.28
times Y feet or 1.305 times X meters). Likewise, we proposed and are
finalizing the same change in text
[[Page 24465]]
format for the minimum room area label.
Comment: AHRI and Daikin indicated EPA could in the future submit a
proposed change to UL to modify the labeling requirements. AHRI also
pointed out that there is an ongoing effort to harmonize the relevant
safety standards and recommended that EPA update references to
requirements for compliance with product safety standards as new
editions and revisions become available. They also suggested EPA
consider incorporating application standards such as ASHRAE 15 when
this harmonization process is complete.
Response: As explained above, EPA finds that these A2L refrigerants
can be used safely provided the use conditions in this final rule are
followed, including compliance with the current (3rd edition) UL 60335-
2-40. Accordingly, EPA is taking final action on the proposal without
waiting for the harmonization process to be completed. EPA understands
that it could submit a change proposal to UL and if in the future EPA
were to determine that additional use conditions are needed after this
rulemaking to ensure safe use of the refrigerants in the residential
and light commercial AC and heat pumps end-use, EPA could consider any
relevant changes and if any revisions to this final rule should be
proposed, for instance by proposing to reference a revised standard and
specific application standards. Given the time required to propose,
discuss, and finalize any change to the UL Standard, EPA understands
that such a revised UL standard would not have been finalized for this
final rule, nor did we expect the harmonization effort to be complete.
If and when a 4th edition of the UL Standard is released, EPA can
consider any relevant changes and if any revisions to this final rule
should be proposed.
Comment: Carrier stated that ``[t]he consensus safety standard CSA/
UL 60335-2-89 committee included representatives from fire service
which concluded that the proposed label requirements replicated from
UL/CSA 60335-2-40 in addition to label requirements for buildings in
building codes were sufficient from their perspective.'' Lennox made
the same point, saying the committee that developed the CSA/UL 60335-2-
89 standard ``included representatives from fire services which
concluded that the UL label requirements were sufficient.''
Response: EPA appreciates learning that fire service personnel were
part of the consensus process for the 60335-2-89 standard but notes
that this is a different UL standard from the one addressed in this
rule. Thus, any conclusions about the adequacy of the label
requirements for that standard are not the same as a conclusion that
the label requirements for the UL standard addressed in this final rule
is sufficient, including the font size. For example, as the 60335-2-89
standard covers commercial refrigeration equipment, it is reasonable to
assume that the fire service personnel were only evaluating the label
requirements for the types of appliances covered by that standard, and
not necessarily agreeing to the adequacy of those requirements for the
equipment covered in this final rule, considering that much of the
equipment in the residential and light commercial AC and heat pumps
end-use has higher refrigerant charge sizes than the appliances covered
in the 60335-2-89 standard. As described elsewhere in this action, we
are concluding that the larger font size is appropriate under SNAP to
reduce risks to technicians, consumers, retail store owners, building
owners and operators, first responders, and those disposing the
appliance, consistent with EPA's approach in other prior SNAP rules.
Comment: Daikin stated that the UL Standard was drafted under a
consensus process and requested that EPA's proposed use conditions
regarding labels be removed, allowing the standard to address any such
requirements.
Response: EPA understands that this UL standard was drafted
following consensus practices, as were standards referenced in past EPA
listings of flammable refrigerants (e.g., 76 FR 78832, December 20,
2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). In those cases, as in this action,
we find that the extra level of safety provided by EPA's labeling
requirement is appropriate under SNAP and that the larger font size
will reduce risks to technicians, consumers, retail store owners,
building owners and operators, first responders, and those disposing
the appliance. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the use conditions
regarding labels as proposed.
iv. Red Markings
Comment: Chemours indicates that using the same use condition for
red markings for these A2L refrigerants as was used for A3 refrigerants
previously listed acceptable amounts to a ``one size fits all''
approach. They disagreed that this should be done and specifically drew
attention to the UL 60335-2-40 standard, which provides different
requirements for equipment with A2L refrigerants compared to equipment
with A3 refrigerants. They indicated that ``treating A2 [sic] and A3
refrigerants the same is likely to cause confusion to end-users,
especially technicians responsible for installation and maintenance of
systems.'' Daikin, Lennox, and Rheem commented that the UL Standard was
adequate and as such the proposed requirement for red markings was not
warranted. EIA, on the other hand, ``strongly supports . . . the
required red markings on piping and hoses outlined on the proposed
rulemaking.''
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for red
markings. Consistent with other rules promulgated under CAA section
612, EPA's requirements of red markings add an extra layer of safety on
top of the labels required under the UL standards, and EPA concludes
this extra protection is appropriate for this listing under SNAP. As
noted above, these types of red markings would signal to 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 or were illegible or not understood (e.g., for non-
English speakers), and would provide similar notification to consumers,
retail store owners, building owners and operators, first responders,
and those disposing the appliance. We understand that UL 60335-2-40
treats A2L and A3 refrigerants differently; however, our proposal and
this final rule do not cover the A3 refrigerants. EPA relied on
different standards when we previously listed A3 refrigerants as
acceptable subject to use conditions and hence we are not treating
these two classes of refrigerants the same. For this SNAP listing, as
in our past listings for A3 (and also A2L) refrigerants, EPA concluded
that it is most important to warn technicians that there is a flammable
refrigerant present, not whether it is specifically an A2L, A2, or A3
refrigerant. Once warned, we would expect the technician then seek to
know which refrigerant is used and to proceed accordingly. While we see
that the flammability risk can be considered ``lower'' when using A2L
refrigerants compared to A3 refrigerants, a risk does exist and we find
that the red markings will provide an additional warning to
technicians, consumers, retail store owners, building owners and
operators, first responders, and those disposing the appliance. We also
note that the use of red markings is already required for HFC-32 as
well as A3 refrigerants in self-contained room air conditioners based
on previous regulations (80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015), and we are not
aware that the marking requirements have led to any confusion.
[[Page 24466]]
Comment: AHRI read the proposal to be proposing all tubing be red,
but thought the intent was to only require such markings for service
ports.
Response: EPA did not intend to propose that all tubing in
equipment using A2L refrigerants be red and we are not finalizing such
a requirement in this final rule. We are finalizing this use condition
as proposed and clarifying in section II.B.1.d that where the red
markings would be applied depends primarily on the equipment design.
The intent in the proposed rule and finalized in this rule is for the
red marking to be present at all service ports for equipment that
includes such service ports, and for the marking to extend one inch
from those ports. Likewise, if connections need to be made in the field
as opposed to at a factory, the one-inch red marking is required at
those connection points. If, however, equipment is provided without
such service ports, the one-inch red marking would be required at the
point in the equipment where any service involving the refrigerant,
including the evacuation of the refrigerant prior to equipment
disposal, would occur. On smaller appliances, we have noted in the past
that a process tube is often provided for such service, and that the
red marking would be required there. As we have also noted previously,
the manufacturer must decide the method of providing the red marking,
for instance via paint, plastic sleeve, shrink wrap, tape, etc.
Comment: AHRI described the labeling requirements of the UL
standard for service ports and indicated that ``use of red markings and
the use of red hoses may cause some confusion.'' The reason the
commenter provided was that typical gage sets currently use red housing
for the higher-pressure side, a comment echoed by Carrier.
Response: EPA does not agree that the similarity of color between
the gage set and the servicing port would lead to confusion. Given that
connections in the gage set also exist for the low-pressure side, we
feel that technicians would understand that a red marking of a service
port does not mean that only the red hose of a gage set must be
connected there. Other EPA requirements, such as the venting
prohibition under section 608(c) of the CAA and technician training
requirements, have existed since the early 1990s, and thus EPA believes
technicians will be able to use gage sets without confusion. Further,
training on flammable refrigerants which several commenters have
pointed to would reinforce the understanding of red service ports and
the use of gage sets. Finally, EPA notes that a similar red coloring
requirement use condition exists for flammable refrigerants, including
HFC-32, in other end-uses, and we are not aware that such coloring has
led to any confusion.
Comment: Chemours stated that the requirement of red markings would
be difficult to implement in certain types of residential and light
commercial air conditioning equipment. As an example, they indicated
that quick-release Schrader valves ``may be impossible to get in red
color.''
Response: EPA does not see evidence that the construction of red-
colored Schrader valves is impossible. In fact, Chemours' comments may
point to the reason why they say such valves are not available.
Chemours pointed out that the equipment types where flammable
refrigerants are currently acceptable subject to use conditions were
self-contained equipment generally using process tubes rather than
Schrader valves. Thus, there may have been no reason to develop them in
the past. However, that does not mean that such valves will not become
available if there is demand for such valves in the future. Although we
cannot confirm that such valves do not exist at all, it is important to
note that other means of applying the red marking may be used. The
regulatory text proposed and finalized in this rule states the red
``color must be applied at all service ports;'' hence, items such as a
red plastic sleeve or shrink wrap at both sides of the port, rather
than the entire port itself, would be acceptable means of meeting this
use condition.
d. SNAP Criteria
i. Flammability Risks and Safety
Comment: AHRI and Lennox pointed to an approximately $7 million
research effort with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other stakeholders on the
behavior and safe use of next generation refrigerants, including the
lower toxicity, lower flammability (A2L) refrigerants in the proposed
rule. Lennox emphasized that such research was used to develop the
safety standards and develop training. Sporlan said this research on 2L
refrigerants is ``of mature enough nature that they will be able to be
safely applied in new systems designed for 2L flammable refrigerants.''
AHRI detailed the extensive use of A2L refrigerants in the United
States and other countries and noted that ``it has yet to find
incidents related to A2L refrigerants.''
Response: The Agency acknowledges AHRI's and Lennox's support for
this proposed listing. EPA acknowledges AHRI and Lennox for providing
this information and note Sporlan's comment, which supports EPA's
finding that the flammability risk of A2L refrigerants can be safely
addressed. After considering all the public comments on this proposal,
we are finalizing this listing, as described in section II.B.
Comment: HARDI indicated that the industry is supporting updates to
the building, mechanical, and fire codes as well as transportation
regulations to allow new equipment to use new refrigerants, including
the A2L ones listed in the proposed rule. HARDI is working with the
industry ``to ensure a smooth and safe transition takes place.''
Response: EPA acknowledges HARDI's information on their efforts to
support the safe use of these refrigerants in residential and light
commercial equipment as well as other types of equipment not covered by
this final rule.
Comment: Honeywell commented that EPA should update the Risk
Screens for R-32 and R-454B included in supporting documents for the
proposed rule. They suggested that because ASHRAE Standard 15 mandates
use of a refrigerant concentration limit (RCL), and ASHRAE Standard 34
sets the RCL to be 25% of the LFL, EPA should use that amount rather
than the 100% of LFL.
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 specific
equipment type leaks out rapidly in a specific room size. If a
substitute's concentrations remain below 100% of the LFL and relevant
toxicity limits in the worst-case 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's risk screens indicate that none of
the types of equipment in this rule with these refrigerants came close
to 100% of the LFL, although they did exceed the 25% mark under the
most conservative scenarios analyzed.
To the extent ASHRAE 15 is incorporated into building codes--as
Honeywell indicates--that requirement to adhere to the ASHRAE RCL would
provide an additional layer of safety above the use conditions set in
this final rule. More generally, the use of risk screens was developed
in the original SNAP Rule issued in 1994 and was not meant to
incorporate every possible risk factor. In fact, in that rule we stated
[[Page 24467]]
``[w]henever the initial risk screen indicated a potential risk, the
substitute was evaluated further to ascertain whether the potential
risk was accurately estimated and if management controls could reduce
any risk to acceptable levels.'' In this case, in the worst-case
scenario where the 25% RCL was exceeded, we concluded that the
additional risk mitigation offered by the UL Standard and our other use
conditions adequately addressed any such risk.
ii. Toxicity and PFAS
Comment: EIA indicated there are ``concerns regarding potential
risks to human health and the environment due to toxicity of
trifluoroacetic acid (`TFA') and other by-products of breakdown of HFO-
1234yf, which is a component of the five refrigerant blends.'' They
pointed to scientific literature that finds HFO-1234yf has a 100%
conversion rate into TFA. They noted that increased use of alternative
refrigerants including HFOs has increased ecosystem levels of
anthropogenic TFA. EIA advised EPA to lead with caution but did not,
however, recommend that additional restrictions be placed on these
refrigerant blends based on TFA concerns. NRDC noted that ``EPA's risk
analyses do not evaluate the potential human health and environmental
impacts of approving additional uses for substances known to degrade
into [TFA].'' NRDC pointed to the previous analyses EPA performed on
TFA and requested that EPA revise those studies to include the
potential use of the five blends in the air-conditioning sector.
Response: EPA does not agree that increased controls on HFOs or
other refrigerants is warranted to address generation of TFA. EPA
studied the potential generation of TFA when we first listed neat
(i.e., 100%, not in blends) HFO-1234yf as acceptable subject to use
conditions in motor vehicle air conditioners. The myriad studies we
referenced all concluded that the additional TFA from HFO-1234yf did
not pose a significant additional risk, even if it were assumed to be
used as the only refrigerant in all refrigeration and air conditioning
equipment (76 FR 17492-17493, March 29, 2011). More recently, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) concluded that ``[t]here is increased
confidence that [TFA] produced from degradation of HFCs, HCFCs, and
HFOs will not harm the environment over the next few decades'' while
also calling for periodic reevaluation of this conclusion.\35\ EPA
likewise finds that the data on TFA is not sufficient to propose or
establish additional restrictions under SNAP at this time. We further
note that the venting prohibition under section 608(c) of the CAA,
codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a), and accompanying refrigerant management
requirements reduce emissions of these refrigerants. EPA intends to
continue reviewing the research on potential impacts from TFA in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Executive Summary:
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, World Meteorological
Organization, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project--Report
No. 58, 67 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. Available at https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/SAP-2018-Assessment-report-ES-rev%20%281%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: NRDC asked EPA to revise the Agency's analysis of the
substances included in this rulemaking that are polyfluoroalkyl or
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), citing two recent papers on the
subject.\36\ \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Cousins, Ian T, et al. The concept of essential use for
determining when uses of PFASs can be phased out. Environmental
Science: Processes & Impacts. The Royal Society of Chemistry. May
28, 2019. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/em/c9em00163h#!divAbstract.
\37\ Kwiatkowski, Carol F. et al. Scientific Basis for Managing
PFAS as a Chemical Class. Environmental Science & Technology
Letters. June 30, 2020. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA acknowledges these references. Upon review of these
papers, EPA does not conclude that any revisions to the evaluation of
overall risk to human health and the environment of the refrigerants
addressed in this final rule is necessary at this time. While the
papers NRDC referenced indicate there are potential health effects due
to accumulation of PFAS in the environment, they do not provide
information concerning the incremental effect that adoption of the five
refrigerants listed in this rule for the residential and light
commercial air conditioning end-use would have or how those effects
would compare to effects from other available substitutes in this end-
use.
Both papers reference decision IV/25 by parties to the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. That decision
concerns applying specific criteria and procedures in assessing an
essential use for the purposes of the control measures in Article 2 of
the Protocol and therefore is not directly relevant to the SNAP
program. Cousins et al. reviewed several examples of PFAS uses to
assess whether they would consider those uses to be ``essential,'' and
those uses did not include the refrigerants considered in this final
rule. Kwiatkowski et al. likewise did not provide an overview of
refrigerants to indicate any additional restrictions that they would
consider warranted.
EPA intends to continue monitoring the scientific research on PFAS
in the future and consider whether this information is relevant for the
SNAP program.
e. Training
Comment: ACCA argues that training and certification of technicians
on the handling of A2L refrigerants is necessary for safety and
consumer peace of mind. ACCA indicated it and others were developing
training and guidelines on A2L refrigerants and provided a list of
several aspects that they are addressing. Carrier noted that industry
has developed an exam for flammable refrigerants under the North
American Technician Excellence (NATE) certification organization.
Chemours also pointed to NATE and ACCA training as well as that by the
Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES), AHRI, and that provided
by refrigerant producers and equipment manufacturers. Daikin also noted
that AHRI is developing guidelines for A2L refrigerants and that
equipment manufacturers are providing training to their service
personnel. Chemours stated that ``[t]echnician training, guidelines,
informational brochures, and certifications for flammable refrigerants
have been or are currently being developed by a number of industry
organizations'' and that ``recovery machines, leak detectors, service
cylinders and fittings are also available to the industry.'' HARDI
indicated the industry is supporting ``the development of training to
allow contractors to install newly designed equipment.'' ACCA asked EPA
to work with them and other industry stakeholders ``to develop and
implement training standards for the handling of flammable
refrigerants.'' Carrier similarly encouraged industry stakeholder
engagement and Chemours stated that given the number of programs that
already exist, EPA should collect a wide range of comments and move
forward with a separate rule on training that incorporates stakeholder
feedback. Rheem agreed that EPA should not undertake the creation of
new training requirements in this rule and went further to say they
were not in favor of a separate rulemaking, believing industry should
create any new training requirements.
Response: EPA acknowledges the commenters' information related to
their work to educate and train technicians on the proper and safe use
of flammable refrigerants, including the A2L refrigerants in this final
rule. In the
[[Page 24468]]
proposed rule (85 FR 35886, June 12, 2020), EPA indicated it would take
advance comments on the possibility of proposing, in a separate rule,
training and service requirements, and we thank the industry for their
advance comments. We will take these comments into consideration to
determine whether we should propose such a rule on training or
undertake other future action. We note that certain safety requirements
for refrigerant recovery and/or recycling equipment are already
included in 40 CFR part 82, subpart F, under EPA's Refrigerant
Management Program. We also indicated in our proposal, as we did in
previous rules finding flammable refrigerants acceptable subject to use
conditions (e.g. 76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10,
2015), that industry may be better suited than EPA to develop
appropriate training, and we see that this development has already
started across multiple fronts.
Comment: AHRI ``strongly supports incorporation of new refrigerant
and requirements regarding A2L refrigerants into existing certification
requirements.'' The Alliance likewise supported this position asking
EPA to update the training and certification framework. Rheem
``encourages EPA to incorporate group A2L and group A3 refrigerants
into any requirements for training and certification that currently
exist for group A1 refrigerants.'' (emphasis in original). EIA
recommended that ``EPA mandate training and servicing requirements for
all flammable refrigerants'' holding that ``[i]n addition to putting
consumers at risk, not mandating such training would create confusion
for contractors if EPA has different rules and standards for different
refrigerants.''
Response: Although AHRI and Rheem did not indicate which existing
training and certification requirements to which they were referring,
we believe it would include the existing technician certification
required under regulations implementing section 608 of the Clean Air
Act. EPA has incorporated information on flammable refrigerants into
the question bank for tests for such certification, which is required
to service equipment that contains the refrigerants covered by this
rulemaking, and has standards in place for refrigerant recovery and/or
recycling equipment used with such refrigerants. As we consider these
advance comments, we note that EPA's 608 test bank already includes
questions concerning A2L refrigerants and the appliances covered by
this rule, and EPA continues to review the test bank and can consider
adding additional questions in the future if appropriate. As noted
above, EPA will consider these advance comments as we determine what,
if any, additional actions we might take, including considering issuing
a proposed rulemaking addressing the possibility of mandating certain
additional training requirements.
Comment: In their support of a separate rulemaking to update
training and certification requirements for A2L refrigerants, Carrier
suggested that a rulemaking provide ``training and service requirements
for anyone purchasing A2L refrigerants or servicing equipment
containing A2L refrigerants,'' noting that Australia and Japan have
credited such requirements in their successful adoption of such
refrigerants. Johnson Controls recommended a licensing system,
delivered by trade schools and accredited by established contractor
trade organizations, for handling A2L refrigerants. They emphasized the
need for hands-on training, including ``demonstration of skills as it
relates to the brazing, evacuating, charging, handling, storage,
transportation, etc. of mildly flammable, A2L refrigerants.''
Response: EPA acknowledges the suggestion of undertaking a
rulemaking to provide training and service requirements for technicians
and the suggestion that it cover those purchasing A2L refrigerants and
servicing equipment containing them. Likewise, we acknowledge Johnson
Controls' recommendations of hands-on training and the topics suggested
to be included in a licensing training curriculum. As noted above, EPA
is taking these advance comments into consideration for possible future
industry engagement and possible rulemaking or other future action.
Comment: EIA commented that industry has ``an aging and diminishing
workforce that need to be retrained.'' In addition to flammability,
they opined the training needs to cover other safety aspects including
health and environmental aspects of venting and accidental release.
They also stated that ``[t]here is significant confusion and lack of
clarity when it comes to applicability of the venting prohibition
itself, which still applies to the maintenance, service, repair, and
disposal of equipment containing HFCs.'' They noted that ``the
workforce needs to be provided basic awareness and education of
refrigerant lifecycle and impacts at different stages'' while also
noting that such education and training already exists. EIA offered
suggestions on how the training program they support could be managed,
such as allowing ``a certain grace period for servicing companies to
bring technicians into compliance before such training becomes
mandatory.'' They noted EPA could partner with the Department of Labor
to ``support the transition to low-GWP alternatives, particularly to
small businesses and women or minority owned companies,'' possibly
complementary to apprenticeship programs under the Workforce
Opportunity and Innovation Act.
Response: EPA appreciates EIA's concern with respect to
technicians' handling of refrigerants. We further note that EPA's
current CAA section 608 technician certification test bank includes
questions concerning topics such as environmental impacts, laws and
regulations (including the venting prohibition and its applicability),
safety, flammable refrigerants, and safe disposal. Under the current
regulations, EPA can make changes to the test bank.
EPA observes that while our proposed rulemaking took advance
comment on the possibility of proposing training and service
requirements for certain flammable refrigerants through a separate
rulemaking, we neither proposed to create a complementary technician
training and certification program in the current rulemaking, nor did
we propose to modify our existing CAA 608 technician certification
program in the current rulemaking. We appreciate EIA's suggestions and
as noted above we will take these comments into consideration in
determining whether to propose a rule or undertake other future action
on such training or service requirements.
Comment: Honeywell stated that ``[a]ny transition to A2L
refrigerants should also be accompanied by a comprehensive training
program'' covering the installation and maintenance of equipment
containing A2L refrigerants. They held that such a training program
should be established, through rulemaking, by EPA before finalization
of this rule. Others, including manufacturers intending to use these
A2L refrigerants in their equipment, disagreed. For instance, Carrier
said they see no reason to delay this rulemaking in order to initiate a
separate rulemaking on training and certification for A2L refrigerants.
Daikin also supported EPA's approach of not proposing specific training
or service practices at this time, stating that manufacturers using A2L
refrigerants provide training to their service personnel.
Response: After considering these comments, we agree with the
comments that it is not necessary to delay this rulemaking to undertake
separate action
[[Page 24469]]
on training, certification, or service practices for A2L refrigerants.
As noted by comments, training is already being provided by some
manufacturers and several organizations have developed or are in the
process of developing training. In past rulemakings listing flammable
refrigerants, we stated our conclusion that training is best left to
the industry, and we find no reason to change that conclusion in this
action. We are not aware of any safety issues that have arisen with the
equipment covered by those rules and our current understanding based on
comments to this rule is that action is already being taken to
adequately train service technicians. While we will nonetheless
consider these advance comments as we determine what, if any,
additional actions we might take, including considering issuing a
proposed rulemaking addressing the possibility of mandating certain
additional training requirements, our current understanding based on
comments to this rule is that the industry in general and interested
manufacturers in particular are already preparing for an adequate level
of training. As noted above, many additional sources are available, and
more are under development, to provide training on the A2L refrigerants
in this final rule and on flammable refrigerants in general.
C. Total Flooding: Removal of Powdered Aerosol E From the List of
Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
Powdered Aerosol E, also marketed under the trade names of FirePro,
FirePro Xtinguish, and FireBan, is generated in an automated
manufacturing process during which the chemicals, in powder form, are
mixed and then supplied to end users as a solid contained within a fire
extinguisher. In the presence of heat, the solid converts to an aerosol
consisting mainly of potassium salts. EPA listed Powdered Aerosol E as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, as a total flooding agent (71 FR
56359, September 27, 2006). The use conditions required that Powdered
Aerosol E be used only in areas that are normally unoccupied, because
the Agency did not have sufficient information at that time supporting
its safe use in areas that are normally occupied. Based on a review of
additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of
Powdered Aerosol E in normally occupied spaces, EPA subsequently
determined that Powdered Aerosol E is also acceptable for use in total
flooding systems for normally occupied spaces (83 FR 50026, October 4,
2018). The listing provides that Powdered Aerosol E is acceptable for
total flooding uses, which includes both unoccupied and occupied
spaces. In the October 2018 listing action, EPA noted that in a
subsequent rulemaking, the Agency would remove the previous listing of
Powdered Aerosol E as acceptable, subject to use conditions since the
use condition is no longer applicable. We received no comments on the
proposal for this listing. Therefore, in this final rule, as proposed,
EPA is taking the ministerial action of removing that listing for
Powdered Aerosol E.
III. How is EPA responding to other public comments?
EPA received other comments beyond the scope of this final action
and addresses them below.
Comment: EIA stated ``that ODS are still undergoing replacement in
the residential and light commercial AC and heat pump end-use and are
subject to EPA's authority under the SNAP Program. EIA urges EPA to
promulgate additional SNAP Program regulations listing high-GWP
substitutes that pose a considerably higher comparable risk to the five
refrigerant blends, as unacceptable for this end-use, including R-410A,
R-404A, R-134a, and R-434A.''
Response: This final rule lists additional substitutes as
acceptable, subject to use conditions, in the residential and light
commercial air conditioning end-use. The proposed rule did not discuss
finding other substitutes unacceptable in this end-use and such
listings are out of scope for this action. Accordingly, this comment
requires no further response.
Comment: EIA noted EPA's ``Ongoing Responsibility to Protect Global
Ozone'' as it relates to methylene chloride
(CH2Cl2). The commenter stated that the
atmospheric concentrations of very short-lived substances (VSLS)
including methylene chloride are increasing and that they are
``increasingly seen as a threat to the progress made by the Montreal
Protocol . . . to protect the ozone layer.'' In order to address this
threat, EIA asks that the agency consider listing methylene chloride
and other similar VSLS as unacceptable in some end-uses.
Response: We appreciate EIA's comments on VSLS and note that EPA
has taken domestic action on methylene chloride under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to its toxicity (84 FR 11420, March
27, 2019). The proposed rule did not discuss listing VSLS as
unacceptable and such listings are out of scope for this final action.
Accordingly, this comment requires no further response.
Comment: Trane commented that HFC-32, R-452B, and R-454B should
also be approved for scroll chillers. AHRI requested EPA to find HFC-32
and R-454B acceptable for positive displacement chillers, and Rheem
similarly asked that SNAP list group A2L refrigerants in such
equipment. Johnson Controls suggested listing HFC-32 and all five
blends acceptable for positive displacement chillers, to include
reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers. The Alliance, Carrier, and
Chemours agreed and encouraged listing HFC-32 and the five A2L blends
acceptable in chillers in general. Carrier pointed out that for
chillers, requirements for machine rooms would be needed and held that
the ASHRAE 15 standard could serve this purpose.
Response: EPA notes that five of these six refrigerants (HFC-32, R-
452B, R-454A, R-454B, and R-454C) have been submitted to the SNAP
program for use in chillers and EPA is evaluating them for the chiller
end-use, encompassing both the centrifugal chiller and positive
displacement chiller end-uses. The other refrigerant, R-457A, has been
submitted but not for the chiller end-uses. The proposed rule addressed
listings for certain end-use categories, which did not include the
chiller end-use. The proposed rule did not discuss finding these
substitutes acceptable in other end uses, and such listings are out of
scope for this action. Accordingly, this comment requires no further
response.
Comment: Rheem sought clarification as to which SNAP end-use Heat
Pump Pool Heaters (HPPH) and Heat Pump Water Heaters (HPWH) belong in
and for clarification as to whether an end use category currently
exists for these types of equipment.
Response: The classification of HPPHs and HPWHs is beyond the scope
of this final rule. Accordingly, this comment requires no further
response. Nonetheless, EPA is now aware of this clarification request
and we invite Rheem and other manufacturers of such equipment to
further pursue this issue separately with EPA and the SNAP program.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
[[Page 24470]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
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. The approved Information Collection Request
includes five types of respondent reporting and recordkeeping
activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: Submission of a SNAP petition,
filing a TSCA/SNAP Addendum, notification for test marketing activity,
recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use restrictions,
and recordkeeping for small volume uses. This rule contains no new
requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
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. This action allows the additional options
under SNAP of using R-32, R-448A, R-449A, R-449B, R-452B, R-454A, R-
454B, R-454C, and R-457A in the specified end-uses, but does not
mandate such use. Users who choose to avail themselves of this
flexibility for R-448A, R-449A, and R-449B must make a reasonable
effort to ascertain that other substitutes or alternatives are not
technically feasible and must document and keep records of the results
of such investigations. Because equipment for R-452B, R-454A, R-454B,
R-454C, and R-457A is not manufactured yet in the U.S. for the
residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps end-
use, no change in business practice is required to meet the use
conditions, resulting in no adverse impact compared to the absence of
this rule. Equipment for R-32 already being manufactured has been
subject to similar use conditions, resulting in no adverse impact
compared to the absence of this rule. Thus, this final rule would not
impose new costs on small entities. We have therefore concluded that
this action will not impose a significant adverse regulatory burden for
all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The 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
Executive Order 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA
periodically updates tribal officials on air regulations through the
monthly meetings of the National Tribal Air Association and will share
information on this rulemaking through this and other fora.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
EPA has not conducted a separate analysis of risks to infants and
children associated with this rule. Any risks to children are not
different than the risks to the general population. This action's
health and risk assessments are contained in the comparisons of
toxicity for the various substitutes, as well as in the risk screens
for the substitutes that are listed in this final rule. The risk
screens are in the docket for this rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action involves technical standards. EPA uses and incorporates
by reference portions of the 2019 UL Standard 60335-2-40, which
establishes requirements for the evaluation of residential air
conditioning equipment and safe use of flammable refrigerants, among
other things. The standard is discussed in greater detail in section
II.B.5 of this preamble.
The 2019 UL Standard 60335-2-40 is available at https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=36463, and may be
purchased by mail at: Comm 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL
60106; Email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in
the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial 1-415-352-2178); internet
address: https://www.shopulstandards.com. The cost of the 2019 UL
Standard 60335-2-40 is $440 for an electronic copy and $550 for
hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the Standards
Certification Customer Library that allows unlimited access to their
standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is
not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers and
purchase is not necessary for those selling, installing, and servicing
the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standard
incorporated by reference is reasonably available.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
EPA believes that it is not feasible to quantify any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects from this action on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because for all affected
populations there is no requirement to use any of the alternatives
listed in this action.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and 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).
[[Page 24471]]
V. References
Unless specified otherwise, all documents are available
electronically through the Federal Docket Management System, Docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0698.
AHRI, 2017. Petition Requesting EPA SNAP Approval of R-448A/449A/
449B for Medium Temperature, Stand-Alone Retail Food Refrigeration
Equipment. Submitted March 20, 2017.
ASHRAE, 2019. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 34-2019: Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants.
Cousins, et al., 2019. Cousins, I.T., Goldenman G., Herzke, D.,
Lohmann, R., Miller, M., Ng, C.A., Patton, S., Scheringer, M.,
Trier, X., Vierke, L., Wang, Z., and DeWitt, J.C. (2019). The
concept of essential use for determining when uses of PFASs can be
phased out. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2019, 21, 1803-1815.
Available online at: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/em/c9em00163h#!divAbstract.
Hodnebrog, et al., 2013. Hodnebrog, [Oslash]., Etminan, M.,
Fuglestvedt, J.S., Marston, G., Myhre, G., Nielsen, C.J., Shine,
K.P., and Wallington, T.J. (2013). Global Warming Potentials and
Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A
Comprehensive Review, Reviews of Geophysics, 51, 300-378. Available
online at doi.org/10.1002/rog.20013.
ICF, 2020a. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New Equipment); Substitute:
R-448A.
ICF, 2020b. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New Equipment); Substitute:
R-449A.
ICF, 2020c. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration
(Medium-temperature Stand-alone Units) (New Equipment); Substitute:
R-449B.
ICF, 2020d. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: HFC-32.
ICF, 2020e. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-452B.
ICF, 2020f. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454A.
ICF, 2020g. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454B.
ICF, 2020h. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-454C.
ICF, 2020i. Risk Screen on Substitutes in Residential and Light
Commercial Air-Conditioning and Heat Pumps (New Equipment);
Substitute: R-457A.
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., Qin, D.,
Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H.L. (eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
Javadi et al., 2008. Javadi, M.S., S[oslash]ndergaard, R., Nielsen,
O.J., Hurley, M.D., and Wellington, T.J., (2008). Atmospheric
chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHF: products and mechanisms of hydroxyl
radical and chlorine atom-initiated oxidation. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics Discussions 8, 1069-1088. Available online at https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/3141/2008/.
Kwiatkowski et al. 2020. Kwiatkowski, C.F., Andrews, D.Q., Birnbaum,
L.S., Bruton, T.A., DeWitt, J.C., Knappe, D.R.U., Maffini, M.V.,
Miller, M.F., Pelch, K.E., Reade, A., Soehl, A., Trier, X., Venier,
M., Wagner, C.C., Wang, Z., and Blum, A. (2020). Scientific Basis
for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.
2020, 7, 532-543. Available online at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255.
Nielsen et al., 2007. Nielsen, O.J., Javadi, M.S., Sulbaek Andersen,
M.P., Hurley, M.D., Wallington, T.J., Singh, R. (2007). Atmospheric
chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase
reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics
Letters 439, 18-22. Available online at http://www.lexissecuritiesmosaic.com/gateway/FedReg/network_OJN_174_CF3CF=CH2.pdf.
The Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News, 2020. ``An
HVAC Technician's Guide to R-32,'' November 12, 2020. Available
online at: https://www.achrnews.com/articles/144053-an-hvac-technicians-guide-to-r-32?oly_enc_id=8731J4776701J6C
UL 60335-2-40, 2019. Standard for Safety for Household And Similar
Electrical Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular Requirements
for Electrical Heat Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers. Third
Edition. November 1, 2019.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Stratospheric ozone layer.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
82 as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
0
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
Appendix O to Subpart G of Part 82 [Amended]
0
2. Appendix O to subpart G of part 82 is amended by removing the entry
``Total flooding; Powdered Aerosol E (FirePro[supreg])''.
[[Page 24472]]
0
3. Add appendix W to subpart G of part 82 to read as follows:
Appendix W to Subpart G of Part 82--Substitutes Listed in the May 6,
2021 Final Rule--Effective June 7, 2021
Refrigerants--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Narrowed use limits Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail food refrigeration-- medium- R-448A, R-449A, R-449B Acceptable Subject to Acceptable only for use in new medium- A possible reason for
temperature stand-alone units (new Narrowed Use Limits. temperature stand-alone units where rejection of one or more
only). reasonable efforts have been made to other alternative(s)
ascertain that other alternatives are could be based on ADA
not technically feasible. requirements.
Users are required to document and
retain the results of their technical
investigation of alternatives for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance.
Information shall include descriptions
of:
Process or product in which
the substitute is needed;
Substitutes examined and
rejected;
Reason for rejection of
other alternatives, e.g.,
performance, technical or safety
standards; and
Anticipated date other
substitutes will be available and
projected time for switching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerants--Substitutes Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Use conditions Further information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential and light commercial R-452B, R-454A, R- Acceptable Subject to These refrigerants may be used only in Applicable OSHA
air conditioning and heat pumps 454B, R-454C and R- Use Conditions. new equipment specifically designed requirements at 29 CFR
(new only). 457A. and clearly identified for the part 1910 must be
refrigerants (i.e., none of these followed, including those
substitutes may be used as a at 29 CFR 1910.94
conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant (ventilation) and
for existing equipment designed for 1910.106 (flammable and
other refrigerants). combustible liquids),
These substitutes may only be used in 1910.110 (storage and
air conditioning equipment that meets handling of liquefied
all requirements in the 3rd edition of petroleum gases), and
UL 60335-2-40. 1 2 3 In cases where 1910.1000 (toxic and
this appendix includes requirements hazardous substances).
more stringent than those of UL 60335- Proper ventilation should
2-40, the appliance must meet the be maintained at all
requirements of this appendix in place times during the
of the requirements in the UL manufacture and storage
Standard. of equipment containing
The charge size for the equipment must flammable refrigerants
not exceed the maximum refrigerant through adherence to good
mass determined according to UL 60335- manufacturing practices
2-40 for the room size where the air as per 29 CFR 1910.106.
conditioner is used. 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.
The following markings must be attached Technicians and equipment
at the locations provided and must be manufacturers should wear
permanent: appropriate personal
(a) On the outside of the air protective equipment,
conditioning equipment: ``WARNING-- including chemical
Risk of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant goggles and protective
Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained gloves, when handling
Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture flammable refrigerants.
Refrigerant Tubing.'' Special care should be
(b) On the outside of the air taken to avoid contact
conditioning equipment: ``WARNING-- with the skin which, like
Risk of Fire. Dispose of Properly In many refrigerants, can
Accordance With Federal Or Local cause freeze burns on the
Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant skin.
Used.'' A class B dry powder type
(c) On the inside of the air fire extinguisher should
conditioning equipment near the be kept nearby.
compressor: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire. Technicians should only
Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult use spark-proof tools
Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before when working on air
Attempting To Service This Product. conditioning equipment
All Safety Precautions Must be with flammable
Followed.'' refrigerants.
(d) For any equipment pre-charged at Any recovery equipment
the factory, on the equipment used should be designed
packaging: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire due for flammable
to Flammable Refrigerant Used. Follow refrigerants. Only
Handling Instructions Carefully in technicians specifically
Compliance with National trained in handling
Regulations.'' flammable refrigerants
(e) On the indoor unit near the should service
nameplate: refrigeration equipment
a. At the top of the marking: ``Minimum containing these
Installation height, X m (W ft)''. refrigerants. Technicians
This marking is only required if should gain an
required by UL 60335-2-40. The terms understanding of
``X'' and ``W'' shall be replaced by minimizing the risk of
the numeric height as calculated per fire and the steps to use
the UL Standard. Note that the flammable refrigerants
formatting here is slightly different safely.
than the UL Standard; specifically, Room occupants should
the height in Inch-Pound units is evacuate the space
placed in parentheses and the word immediately following the
``and'' has been replaced by the accidental release of
opening parenthesis. this refrigerant.
b. Immediately below (a) above or at Personnel commissioning,
the top of the marking if (a) is not maintaining, repairing,
required: ``Minimum room area decommissioning and
(operating or storage), Y m\2\ (Z disposing of appliances
ft\2\)''. The terms ``Y'' and ``Z'' with these refrigerants
shall be replaced by the numeric area should obtain training
as calculated per the UL Standard. and follow practices
Note that the formatting here is consistent with Annex HH
slightly different than the UL of UL 60335-2-40, 3rd
Standard; specifically, the area in edition.1 2 3
Inch-Pound units is placed in CAA section 608(c)(2)
parentheses and the word ``and'' has prohibits knowingly
been replaced by the opening venting or otherwise
parenthesis. knowingly releasing or
disposing of substitute
refrigerants in the
course of maintaining,
servicing, repairing or
disposing of an appliance
or industrial process
refrigeration.
Department of
Transportation
requirements for
transport of flammable
gases must be followed.
Flammable refrigerants
being recovered or
otherwise disposed of
from residential and
light commercial air
conditioning appliances
are likely to be
hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (see
40 CFR parts 260-270).
[[Page 24473]]
(f) For non-fixed equipment,
including portable air
conditioners, window air
conditioners, packaged terminal air
conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, on the outside of the
product: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire or
Explosion--Store in a well
ventilated room without
continuously operating flames or
other potential ignition.''
(g) For fixed equipment, including
rooftop units and split air
conditioners, ``WARNING--Risk of
Fire--Auxiliary devices which may
be ignition sources shall not be
installed in the ductwork, other
than auxiliary devices listed for
use with the specific appliance.
See instructions.''
(h) All of these markings must be in
letters no less than 6.4 mm (\1/4\
inch) high.
The equipment must have red Pantone
Matching System (PMS) #185 or RAL 3020
marked service ports, pipes, hoses, or
other devices through which the
refrigerant passes, to indicate the
use of a flammable refrigerant. This
color must be applied 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 (25mm) in both
directions from such locations and
shall be replaced if removed.
Residential and light commercial R-32.................. Acceptable Subject to These refrigerants may be used only in Applicable OSHA
air conditioning and heat pumps Use Conditions. new equipment specifically designed requirements at 29 CFR
(new only), excluding self- and clearly identified for the part 1910 must be
contained room air conditioners. refrigerants (i.e., none of these followed, including those
substitutes may be used as a at 29 CFR 1910.94
conversion or ``retrofit'' refrigerant (ventilation) and
for existing equipment designed for 1910.106 (flammable and
other refrigerants). combustible liquids),
These substitutes may only be used in 1910.110 (storage and
air conditioning equipment that meets handling of liquefied
all requirements in the 3rd edition of petroleum gases), and
UL 60335-2-40.1 2 3 In cases where 1910.1000 (toxic and
this appendix includes requirements hazardous substances).
more stringent than those of UL 60335- Proper ventilation should
2-40, the appliance must meet the be maintained at all
requirements of this appendix in place times during the
of the requirements in the UL manufacture and storage
Standard. of equipment containing
The charge size for the equipment must flammable refrigerants
not exceed the maximum refrigerant through adherence to good
mass determined according to UL 60335- manufacturing practices
2-40 for the room size where the air as per 29 CFR 1910.106.
conditioner is used. 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.
The following markings must be attached Technicians and equipment
at the locations provided and must be manufacturers should wear
permanent: appropriate personal
(a) On the outside of the air protective equipment,
conditioning equipment: ``WARNING-- including chemical
Risk of Fire. Flammable Refrigerant goggles and protective
Used. To Be Repaired Only By Trained gloves, when handling
Service Personnel. Do Not Puncture flammable refrigerants.
Refrigerant Tubing.'' Special care should be
(b) On the outside of the air taken to avoid contact
conditioning equipment: ``WARNING-- with the skin which, like
Risk of Fire. Dispose of Properly In many refrigerants, can
Accordance With Federal Or Local cause freeze burns on the
Regulations. Flammable Refrigerant skin.
Used.'' A class B dry powder type
(c) On the inside of the air fire extinguisher should
conditioning equipment near the be kept nearby.
compressor: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire. Technicians should only
Flammable Refrigerant Used. Consult use spark-proof tools
Repair Manual/Owner's Guide Before when working on air
Attempting To Service This Product. conditioning equipment
All Safety Precautions Must be with flammable
Followed.'' refrigerants.
(d) For any equipment pre-charged at Any recovery equipment
the factory, on the equipment used should be designed
packaging: ``WARNING--Risk of Fire due for flammable
to Flammable Refrigerant Used. Follow refrigerants. Only
Handling Instructions Carefully in technicians specifically
Compliance with National Regulations'' trained in handling
(e) On the indoor unit near the flammable refrigerants
nameplate: should service
a. At the top of the marking: ``Minimum refrigeration equipment
Installation height, X m (W ft)''. containing this
This marking is only required if refrigerant. Technicians
required by UL 60335-2-40. The terms should gain an
``X'' and ``W'' shall be replaced by understanding of
the numeric height as calculated per minimizing the risk of
the UL Standard. Note that the fire and the steps to use
formatting here is slightly different flammable refrigerants
than the UL Standard; specifically, safely.
the height in Inch-Pound units is Room occupants should
placed in parentheses and the word evacuate the space
``and'' has been replaced by the immediately following the
opening parenthesis. accidental release of
b. Immediately below (a) above or at this refrigerant.
the top of the marking if (a) is not Personnel commissioning,
required: ``Minimum room area maintaining, repairing,
(operating or storage), Y m\2\ (Z decommissioning and
ft\2\)''. The terms ``Y'' and ``Z'' disposing of appliances
shall be replaced by the numeric area with this refrigerant
as calculated per the UL Standard. should obtain training
Note that the formatting here is and follow practices
slightly different than the UL consistent with Annex HH
Standard; specifically, the area in of UL 60335-2-40, 3rd
Inch-Pound units is placed in edition.\1\ \2\ \3\
parentheses and the word ``and'' has CAA section 608(c)(2)
been replaced by the opening prohibits knowingly
parenthesis. venting or otherwise
knowingly releasing or
disposing of substitute
refrigerants in the
course of maintaining,
servicing, repairing or
disposing of an appliance
or industrial process
refrigeration.
Department of
Transportation
requirements for
transport of flammable
gases must be followed.
Flammable refrigerants
being recovered or
otherwise disposed of
from residential and
light commercial air
conditioning appliances
are likely to be
hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) (see
40 CFR parts 260-270).
(f) For fixed equipment, including
rooftop units and split air
conditioners, ``WARNING--Risk of
Fire--Auxiliary devices which may
be ignition sources shall not be
installed in the ductwork, other
than auxiliary devices listed for
use with the specific appliance.
See instructions.''
(g) All of these markings must be in
letters no less than 6.4 mm (\1/4\
inch) high.
[[Page 24474]]
The equipment must have red Pantone
Matching System (PMS) #185 or RAL
3020 marked service ports, pipes,
hoses, or other devices through
which the refrigerant passes, to
indicate the use of a flammable
refrigerant. This color must be
applied 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 (25mm) in both directions from
such locations and shall be
replaced if removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UL 60335-2-40, Standard for Safety for Household And Similar Electrical Appliances--Safety--Part 2-40: Particular Requirements for Electrical Heat
Pumps, Air-Conditioners and Dehumidifiers, Third edition, Dated November 1, 2019.
\2\ You may purchase the material from UL by mail: Comm 2000; 151 Eastern Avenue; Bensenville, IL 60106; email: [email protected]; phone: 1-888-
853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial +1-415-352-2168); or web: www.shopulstandards.com.
\3\ 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. All approved
material is available for inspection at U.S. EPA's Air and Radiation Docket; EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC,
202-566-1742 and is available from Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, 877.854.3577, www.ul.com. It is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
[FR Doc. 2021-08968 Filed 5-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P